I have always considered the health risks of RF communications as a null concern. The source of the claims that RF is dangerous to health is always from fringe groups. It wasn’t until I saw an advertisement poster in a motorway service station promoting the health risks of 5G that I started thinking this could be getting more into the mainstream. I have asked which is safer: 5G or Wi-Fi 6? However, this is asked with a tongue firmly in cheek, as in RF radiation terms they are the same, regardless of underlying technology used.
There are a lot of groups protesting against 5G in particular. This ranges from the health detriment of RF radiation to the security risks and more recently the hypothesised connection between 5G cellular network towers and Coronavirus.
A person unfamiliar with the underlying physics may be concerned that there is such a hype around this issue. The ‘no smoke without fire’ adage may creep into their mind. As any scientist will admit, there is a lot that we do not fully understand, so there is a possibility that there could be some truth in this right? Well this article will explain what is known and how this compares to the concerns being raised.
Radiation
The term ‘radiation’ is often used with negative connotations, we are used to seeing signs stating ‘Danger Radiation’ or ‘Radiation Risk Keep Out!’
It is understandable then that when this term is used with mobile phone radiation or wi-fi radiation is can naturally make people feel concerned. As humans we are conditioned to spot signs of danger. Our ancestors would have been the ones that were spooked by a strange shape lurking in the grass. Those that didn’t care unfortunately got eaten by the lion and didn’t get chance to pass on their genetic material.
So, is all radiation dangerous? The Oxford dictionary defines radiation as:
‘The emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, especially high-energy particles which cause ionization.’
This definition highlights the issue. All electromagnetic (EM) waves can be defined as radiation, this includes Radio waves, Microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, Gamma rays etc. The definition however refers especially to the high energy, ionising radiation. This high energy radiation is what the danger signs are referring to. It is well observed that ionising radiation has enough energy to penetrate living cells and alter DNA. Fear of this radiation is very much warranted. It is understandable then, that when low energy, non-ionising EM waves, such as used in wireless communication, are referred to as ‘radiation’ it can trigger that ‘spook’ reaction.
As a side note, the ‘particle’ reference in the definition refers to the wave-particle duality observed at the subatomic level. EM waves are made up of photons that are discrete bundles of energy that exhibit characteristics of both waves and particles.
Ionising and Non-Ionising Radiation
So, we know that high energy ionising radiation is dangerous but what makes low energy non ionising radiation different, and where is the demarcation between the two?
Obviously this this a very deep and complex subject but the key difference is that ionising radiation has enough energy to penetrate the atomic structure and knock an electron out of orbit. This is where the term ionising comes from as removing an electron gives the atom positive charge.
As discussed earlier this penetration can do bad things to living cells. Non-ionising radiation simply does not have enough energy to penetrate atoms or living cells. The demarcation between the two is just above ultra-violet light. UV can damage the surface of living cells but not penetrate them. This surface damage is what we experience as sunburn.
Figure 2 below shows the EM spectrum. The energy levels can be seen to increase with frequency. The ionising radiation is above the spectrum of visible and UV light and into the X-ray and Gamma Ray spectrum.
Wi-Fi and Cellular Radiation
Note from Figure 2 that the Microwave spectrum, 800MHz to 10GHz is well below the point at which radiation becomes ionising. The frequency in the microwave spectrum means it is far too low an energy level to cause ionisation and therefore cannot change matter and cause damage. Note that the microware spectrum is also well below visible light. If there are concerns that a microwave source is dangerous to health, any source of visible light should be many times more concerning.
What about Microwave ovens? As any Wi-Fi engineer knows, microwave ovens transmit right in the middle of the 2.4GHz spectrum used for Wi-Fi. These ovens clearly have an effect on our food, surely the same is happening to our brains with Wi-Fi radiation? The difference here is the power level. An oven is usually around 1000 Watts, the food is also very close to the transmitting source. This high power is able to excite the water molecules causing friction and therefore heat. We know how rubbish a microwave is at heating food when someone has left it on defrost, well that is usually a quarter of the power, so 4 times less, imagine how rubbish 10,000 times less power would be. Well at 100mW that’s how much less a Wi-Fi access point is. Wi-Fi radiation functions at a power level far too low to provide the energy for heating.
So, having discussed some of the physics behind cellular and wi-fi radiation let’s take a look at some of the reported dangers.
The Reported Dangers
There are hundreds of websites and you tube videos making claims that Wi-Fi and cellular radiation are harmful. Health claims range from Autism, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Fibromyalgia and most recently Coronavirus.
I have chosen a single example article and will look at the specific claims made.
Gaia.com wrote an article in May 2019 on the health risk of 5G. Here are some of the more specific claims:
They start with an often quoted appeal from ‘scientists’ calling for the risks of 5G to be investigated.
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)… and has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
The term ‘Scientists’ is often used to add credibility to a statement. Unfortunately completing a degree programme in a scientific discipline does not automatically grant a person with being always correct is everything they say or agree to. Having completed a scientific degree myself and thinking back to some of my fellow students. I can certainly say that I would not trust someone, just because they have a science degree! Anyone can have strange beliefs, and be motivations support these beliefs rather than the scientific method, even scientists.
The appeal the following to back up their claims:
- The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).
- Exposure to EMF causes cancer according to a National Toxicology Program (NTP) study
- The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that ”there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”
The first is often cited as it sounds scary and is from a very credible source. IARC defines 3 groups for carcinogenic agents; basically yes, no and maybe. Group 2 is maybe and split into 2A probable and 2B possible. Group 2B contains many everyday items such as Aloe Vera, food colouring and until recently, coffee. Coffee is great example as it shows that a single inconclusive study can get an agent into the 2B classification and it takes several conclusively negative studies to get is re-classified. I expect coffee producers were happy to fund these studies. However RF device producers are aware that there is no known mechanism of which would allow RF EMF to cause cancer so their money is best spent elsewhere.
When researching anti-Wi-Fi and 5G nearly all cite this single study by the NTP. This study however is not as conclusive as those citing it would have you believe. Steven Novella provides a good analysis of this study. The study shows a statistically significant increase in a certain type of tumour for rats exposed to high levels of RF for their entire lives. However this was only notable in male rats, not the females and not the mice. The authors of the report also noted that several other factors may have caused this increase. Opposing this is the 20 years that Wi-Fi and mobile phone radiation have been in our lives with zero apparent ill effects.
The third on electromagnetic hypersensitivity EHS is a separate claim, that not just that RF causes cancer in humans but that all electrical equipment that produce an EMF can cause illness. The symptoms of EHS as stated above are very much non-specific symptoms. For example all of which can be attributed to common colds or stress. Several studies have shown that sufferers are unable to detect when they are exposed to an EMF and when they are not. There are of course several wellness clinics including the Breakspear Hospital in Hemel Hempstead that will provide an EMF free environment for patients. They also state that they won’t cover you with pesticides, which is nice.
Why 5G
The Gaia article justifies that reason to focus on 5G as it is of a higher frequency than previous generations. They say that previously radio frequencies were benign and how we never feared that the drive time show would fry our brains. I love this irony of this little joke, as they are literally making fun or their own claims. The article states that it is the higher frequencies of 5G that make it dangerous. They claim this is in the range of 30 – 300GHz. If they see frequencies of up to 300GHz as dangerous, I’d hate to be the one to tell them that they are being bombarded by EM radiation at a 300THz – from their light bulb.
After getting the reader fearful of their safety the article very kindly them provides the solution. This is in the form of immune system booting supplements such as wheatgrass juice, also EM shield and even a device that converts harmful EM radiation in beneficial radiation.
I don’t mean to pick on Gaia, I have just used their article as I found it representative of the health claims and is certainly more eloquently presented than most. There are many Youtube videos claiming to prove the harmful effects of Wi-Fi or cellular radiation, many feature a presenter with a box with a digital readout of numbers wildly increasing as they hold it near an EM or electrical source. I found that the presenter never satisfactorily explains what the device is that they are using or what the numbers mean. Often they are then selling some sort of EM shield and showing how the numbers decrease with the shield attached. One particular device in the form of a sticker could be attached to a mobile phone and would shield the user from EM radiation, the device is so sophisticated that it does not affect the normal function of the phone in any way.
Conclusions
Clearly there is disagreement between the health concerns raised and the mainstream scientific consensus. I have attempted in this article to seriously consider the claims of dangers to health from RF EMF. But by then applying established scientific knowledge we find that this causes the claims to collapse as they are often built on a misunderstanding.
It is important not to be dismissive or to ridicule anyone who is concerned about these claims. They are not crazy or stupid, they are just following their human instinct to be concerned of that which is not clear to them. It is our job as RF engineers to listen to their concerns and explain the science so that the lion shaped shadow hiding in the grass can be shown to be nothing more than a harmless mound of earth.
Thanks for reading this blog. All feedback is welcome, please add your comments below..
References and further reading.
- IBC: How to Transmit 4K Video and 10 Gbps using 60 GHz Wireless
- Skeptoid: 5G: Upgrade or Uncertainty:
- Skeptoid: Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and Other Radio Bogeymen
- Skeptoid: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?
- Gaia: 5G Health Risks; The War Between Technology and Human Beings
- Scientists 5G appeal
- NTP TECHNICAL REPORT
- Steven Novella Neurological Blog: That Rat Cellphone Study
- List of IARC Group 2B Agents
- Breakspear Hospital EHS clinic:
Wireless Networking by Ash Mead 
The folks who taught me avionics in the late 70’s who started in the 60’s were very concerned with being cooked radar frequencies which is what we are talking about and their point additionally was that this very hazard was how we came up microwaves. You can Bo haha it, but I suspect we will regret it greatly. It needs to be studied in earnest. You might be right; will you bet your child or your spouses life on it?
LikeLiked by 1 person