Is Your Wi-Fi a Health Hazard? The Debate Over EMF Safety Guidelines

The last twenty years has seen an explosion of wireless devices – from cell phones to “smart” speakers, kitchen appliances, headphones and lightbulbs. Virtually everywhere we go now has wi-fi: Our homes, our schools, even our grocery stores. But what do we know about the safety of all the EMFs emanating from these devices and surrounding us 24/7?

What are EMFs?

EMFs are electromagnetic fields, which are made up of electric and magnetic energy that can come from both natural and human-made sources.

The electromagnetic spectrum is composed of shorter and longer wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths, known as ionizing radiation, include x-rays and emissions from nuclear power generation. Ionizing radiation contains enough energy to “ionize” atoms or molecules, which means it can detach electrons from them. If this happens at the cellular level, it can cause DNA damage, which is why we limit exposure to x-rays and avoid radioactive materials.

Non-ionizing radiation contains longer wavelengths and is emitted by power lines, cell phones, televisions, radios, and other common electrical devices. Visible light falls in the middle of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is a subset of non-ionizing radiation. These longer wavelengths are what enable wireless devices like cell phones, laptops, and tablets as well as wi-fi routers, “smart” meters and other “smart” devices to communicate with one another without wires.

What the research says about EMF safety

While most of us assume regulatory bodies have carefully evaluated the possible risks to human health of any new technology, critics say that has not been the case with EMFs from wireless communication. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), it turns out, have largely relied on data from studies of a small number of subjects conducted in the late 1980s that used simplistic assumptions about biological systems to determine safe thresholds for electromagnetic radiation.

Foremost among these assumptions is that the only effect of concern from non-ionizing radiation is heat. Martin Pall, an emeritus professor of biochemistry at Washington State University who studies electromagnetic fields’ effects on human biology, explains that ICNIRP issued safety guidelines in 1998 that were “adopted pretty much intact by countries around the world,” including the US, Canada, the EU, Australia and elsewhere and which have changed little in the decades since. Importantly, he notes, “They are entirely based on thermal effects, that is, on the notion that the only thing EMFs can do is to heat things.”

However, hundreds of studies looking at nonthermal effects have found numerous ways wireless radiation does in fact influence biological processes without producing any thermal effects. Pall contends that because regulatory bodies refuse to accept that anything aside from heat could have negatively affect health, current guidelines “completely and utterly fail to protect us from the EMFs used by the telecom industry. ”

Pall is far from alone in this belief. In a 2022 paper published in the journal Environmental Health, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) argues that “the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm.”

A 2023 paper authored by scientists studying the effects of wireless radiation around the world outlines numerous additional “blind spots” in the current guidelines that “reflect a deep misunderstanding of toxicology, biology and medicine.” They explain: “Neither the fact that environmental RFR is non-ionizing nor that its levels are low preclude RFR action on living systems. Non-ionizing radiation does not act by ionizing but acts by direct action on electrons and protons.”

They also call out several ways the guidelines set in the 1990s misrepresent the ways these devices are actually used today, including distance from the body, presumed length and intensity of exposure and other methodological shortcomings.

The authors point to numerous studies suggesting that exposure to radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones increases risks of certain types of cancer and neurological disorders, damages sperm and increases oxidative stress.

Though regulatory limits have long assumed that low-frequency waves couldn’t damage DNA, a recent meta-analysis of more than 500 studies has found they can. Approximately half of the studies included found impacts on DNA from wireless exposure levels below the limits set by ICNIRP. They found some types of cells were more vulnerable to damage, especially reproductive, heart and brain cells.

Of particular concern to researchers is the possible effects on children and fetuses from exposure during times of critical brain development. Children’s skulls are thinner than adults, they point out, allowing RFR to penetrate more deeply into the brain. Further, children born since the proliferation of wireless devices will receive far greater lifetime exposure than those of us born in the previous century, so we can’t yet know about the long-term health impacts of spending one’s whole life surrounded by current amounts of RFR.

Because it’s not possible to create human control groups free of RFR exposure in a world so permeated by it, researchers rely on animal models, in-vitro experiments, and epidemiological studies, which skeptics note cannot definitively prove causation. Without such definitive proof, regulators have resisted re-examining safety guidelines. The fact that many cancers and other health conditions can take decades to develop also means that we can’t yet have a complete picture of the epidemiological effect of RFRs at the population level.

Rob Brown, a radiologist and Vice President of Scientific Research at the Environmental Health Trust, reports that the accumulation of evidence has largely convinced the scientific community of the biological effects of radiation emitted by wireless devices. “The science is done,” he says. “It’s purely a political and economic issue.”

As evidence about the health risks of EMFs has mounted, several countries have altered regulations to protect their citizens, dropping limits to a fraction of those recommended by ICNIRP. While the guidelines used in the US set the limit for wireless radiation at ten million microwatts per square meter, Italy and Switzerland allow a maximum of only 95,000, roughly a hundred times lower.

How RFRs affect cells

Pall’s work has revealed that RFRs influence the flow of calcium into cells by activating voltage controlled calcium channels (VGCCs), which regulate the concentration of calcium inside cells. He explains, “Calcium signaling is very important not only in all animal cells, but in all plant cells,” and likely in other lifeforms as well. When calcium levels in the cell rise too much, so does  , which plays a critical role in mitochondrial function and numerous diseases, from neurological disorders to cancer. Multiple studies have found that RFR exposure produces oxidative stress.

While not suggesting that these diseases are caused solely by EMF exposure, Pall suspects that because VGCCs are involved in numerous disorders, including Alzheimers and heart disease, exposure to wireless radiation may play a part. He points to rising rates of very early onset Alzheimers and sudden cardiac death in very young people as suggesting that increasing levels of EMF exposure could be a significant factor. Other researchers have postulated that rising rates of colorectal cancer in younger people might be linked to the habit of keeping a phone in one’s back pocket.

Other studies have found that sperm quality and motility decreases with EMF exposure, and researchers think the practice of carrying phones in front pockets and using laptops on laps may be part of the reason infertility rates have increased in recent decades.

Though studying the effects of RFR on humans poses many challenges, Brown found a way to conduct an experiment demonstrating one biological effect on a human subject. As a radiologist, he had noticed that more people were coming in with blood that appeared more viscous than it should, which he describes as “more like a kefir consistency than a liquid.” To test whether electromagnetic radiation might be involved in this effect, he used ultrasound to image the blood of a subject with normal blood viscosity before and after holding a cell phone on the leg for five minutes. After that time, ultrasound revealed an abnormal viscosity known as Rouleaux formation. Brown hypothesizes that radiation depolarizes red blood cells, allowing them to stick to one another rather than repel each other as they usually do.

Brown explains that we don’t yet know the effects of such viscosity, but he notes that it would likely reduce the oxygen available to cells and could clog blood vessels, leading to such critical effects as strokes.

How to reduce EMF exposure

Our environment is now so full of RFR, completely avoiding it isn’t realistic for most people. However, there are ways to significantly reduce your exposure. Below are those most recommended by experts.

Keep devices off your body. Avoid having phones, tablets, and laptops directly against your body. Carry your phone in a bag rather than a pocket and use speaker phone instead of holding the phone next to your ear. Use tablets and laptops on tables rather than resting on your body, and work offline when you can. Download videos and then disconnect from wi-fi and cellular if you or your kids are watching them on phones or tablets.

Shut off the wifi when not in use. The simplest way to start reducing RFRs in your home is to put your wifi router on a timer that shuts off for the night. Switching to hard-wired internet connections will reduce RFRs in your home even more.

Don’t use devices when they’re plugged in. RFR increases when phones, tablets and computers are charging.

Avoid using your phone when signals are weak. Emissions from phones increase significantly to try to reach cell towers when signal strength is poor.

Say no to wireless everything. From “smart” speakers to lightbulbs, going wireless means adding more EMFs to your environment. Bluetooth earbuds and headphones bring RFRs right up next to your brain, where you really don’t want them. Choose wired tech whenever you can.

Consider using shielding materials. “Faraday” fabrics, which have metals woven in them that block RFR, can put a shield between you and your tech when you must have it close to your body. Look for third-party testing, or consider investing in an EMF detector to help you determine if they’re performing as advertised.

While new technologies can add convenience and value to our lives in myriad ways, we shouldn’t assume they’re innocuous, even if our regulatory bodies do. It took decades for enough evidence to accumulate to convince regulators to take action on other harmful toxicants like cigarette smoke, lead, and “forever chemicals.”

“We’re never going to put the genie back in the bottle,” Brown concedes. “It’s really about educating people to reduce their exposure wherever and whenever they can and to turn off devices when they don’t need them.”

I didn’t find an article specifically on oxidative stress, and it’s something that gets mentioned a lot if you’d be interested in something specifically defining it/highlighting key causes and ways to reduce it