Bits and pieces of what may be a single story have been filtering out over the last couple of days regarding the potential health risks caused by our increasing bombardment with radiation from wireless networking gear. The cynical might suggest that the sudden interest may be a result of last week's findings that cell phone use brings no increase in cancer risk; with cell phones in the clear, angst was free to focus on some other source of radiation. More specifically, recent attention seems to have originated with a Times of London feature dating from Monday. The article notes that there has been ongoing concern regarding the potential health risks of WiFi use, including its elimination by a Canadian university. Unfortunately, it quickly descends into raising unsupported concerns and specifically citing anecdote. The article ends with an extensive description of the symptoms one person experienced after installing a WiFi router in their home. What are we to make of all of this?
Digging into some of the article's sources, the most authoritative statement of concern comes from a report to the Irish Doctors Environmental Association. Speaking of electromagnetic radiation in general, the report is quoted as stating, "A growing, consistent body of literature demonstrates that a subgroup of the population appears to suffer distressing symptoms when exposed to this type of radiation." The literature cited to support this, however, is anecdotal—perhaps the most solid data cited suggests a weak correlation with a subset of the claimed symptoms. Despite this poor experimental support, Sweden has recognized this as an official disability.
The initial report in the Times suggests that clearer data will come from an ongoing double-blind study, but WiFi Net News has found that a study of this sort has already been published. Those claiming to be radiation-sensitive were found to have their symptoms correlate with being informed of radiation exposure, regardless of whether any radiation sources were active. Thus, general health studies have shown no overall problems with cellphone-like radiation, and claims that there is a subpopulation that's uniquely sensitive don't seem to hold up.
Where does WiFi fit in? The Times quotes someone from the British Health Protection Authority as stating that WiFi equipment creates only a fraction of the signal people normally get from cellphones: "When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from WiFi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels." Given that the FCC limits WiFi and cellular equipment to similar signal strengths, and that cellular equipment is far more prevalent, WiFi appears to be a negligible health concern. So, it appears that everything we need to know should have been available to the Times. Their decision to emphasize unsupported anecdote does a lot to support the notion that part of the cause of the public's poor grasp of science may originate with the press. On the plus side, it's good to know that this problem is not unique to the US.
