Let's talk about wi-fi
Why I don't use it at home, how it prematurely ages you, and is more dangerous for your children
When it comes to wi-fi and the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by it and/or any wi-fi enabled device, my view is simple — I apply the precautionary principle.
What does this mean? Officially, it’s defined as “an approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.” Short form — decision making under uncertainty.
Basically, because it is not definitively known that the levels of EMR commonly emitted by wi-fi are not injurious to the human body, and because there is an extensive peer-reviewed body of scientific evidence that states unequivocally that it is, in an environment over which I have control, my home, I choose to avoid it.
Quick definition: Wi-Fi is the sending out of radio waves in order to communicate with compatible electronic devices. All of this happens at the speed of light, invisible to the naked eye. While electronic devices are connected to wi-fi, both the electronic device and the wireless internet router are emitting radio waves. Radio waves are also known as radiofrequency. Radiofrequency is a form of electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic fields produce electromagnetic field radiation. Therefore, radio waves are a type of EMF radiation. There are two types of EMF Radiation (EMR) — ionising (X-rays to nuclear etc) and non-ionising (radio waves, microwaves and wi-fi). The debate is whether non-ionising radiation has an injurious effect on the soft tissues and DNA of the body over the long term.
That notwithstanding, here are some incontrovertible facts…
The World Health Authority in association with International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ruled that EMR should be classified as a Group 2B carcinogen, meaning that it is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
EMR is proven to cause oxidative stress to cells enabling faster production of free radicals that impair the functionality of those cells. In other words, it makes you age faster, and encourages nutrient depletion which could in turn contribute to chronic illness like cancer, tumours, or neurological problems like Alzheimer’s.
Commonly reported symptoms of EMR exposure include headaches, anxiety, loss of libido, reduced fertility, lowered testosterone in men, depression, sleep disruption, impaired memory and learning ability, and fatigue.
In France, wi-fi is legally banned in nurseries, schools, kindergartens and childcare centres that cater for children under the age of six. In addition, in primary schools where computers are used in lessons, wi-fi points in classrooms must be disabled when not in use. This was a law passed 8 years ago by the French National Assembly on January 29, 2015.
Wireless phone use has been linked to an increased risk for brain cancer.
Report by Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden
Crucially, radiation exposure is cumulative. In other words, exposure over the long term, even in low doses, is what matters. Especially to the elderly, anyone already immunosuppressed and children. [Edit: it’s particularly bad for children on account of their thinner skulls. A study published in 2018 revealed that a child’s brain absorbs 2-3 times more radiation than an adult’s. Why? Because, in general children have proportionally smaller heads and brains, yet receive the same levels of radiation as adults. Talking specifically about mobile phone use, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees, saying that “when used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.”]
The inconvenient truth is that wi-fi and its associated EMR simply hasn’t been around long enough for us to have collated proper data with regards to its potentially injurious effect on the human body. Wireless networks were first available in the UK in 1991. 3G came in 2001, 4G five years later, and now 5G is already looming on the horizon (more on that at the end of this piece). And all the while, we’re being used as guinea pigs. More pertinently, many chronic diseases like cancer gestate for 10-20 years so although the damage may be done now, the results won’t be apparent for another decade. And by then it’s too late. So this is particularly significant for anyone born in the 90s who will have had a lifetime of inadvertent exposure.
In short, just because something exists, doesn’t mean it’s safe. Think asbestos. Smoking. Lead in paint. Teflon. Chemicals in cleaning products. Plastic microbeads. The list goes on. These were all things introduced to a consumer market prior to being tested for their toxicity to humans, or in some cases, even when the effect was privately known to the producers in question. See my #toxiccleaning Highlight button on Instagram or watch either of the blockbuster movies Erin Brockovich or Dark Waters.
The pursuit of profit outweighed people. Fact, not fiction.
Crucially, in the cases cited above it was only concerted consumer action that prompted change, not legislation. And it certainly wasn’t voluntary evolution by the businesses in question! Rather they threw squads of legal teams at the ‘problem’ to try to protect their investments.
Hence, after reading a lot of the research, and assessing the arguments on both sides, my informed conclusion is simply not to use wi-fi at all in my home.
Rest assured I’m no conspiracy crackpot!
And neither is my home plunged into the dark ages. I have a superfast broadband connection with a fully internet enabled TV, phone and laptop. I simply connect using ethernet cables and my phone has an EMR protective case (the wi-fi and Bluetooth functions are disabled unless I need them ie to Airdrop images to my laptop or Hot Spot; side bonus, no-one can covertly cyberflash me!).
I wear an Apple watch to track my steps, but it’s permanently on Airplane mode. I want my watch to be a phone. I simply toggle on the Bluetooth when I wish to download my steps data. No-one needs their data automatically downloaded every single second of the day and night. Neither do I need all my devices constantly communicating with each other. Quite aside from which the batteries run down a lot faster if they are.
In the home wi-fi is energy wasting and unnecessary. It can also be a potential security hazard as wireless networks can be easily hacked with access gained to any of your connected devices, thus passwords or other sensitive data. And when I go on holiday, I always disable the wi-fi anywhere I stay; request that it be turned off; or better yet, actively search out places where it’s not available.
On the flip side, yes, not having wi-fi can be inconvenient at times. For example, I have to manually decide when to update my laptop and phone, but I really don’t consider that much of a hardship against the backdrop of these rather sobering general health facts that kind of indicate white clearly to me that we’re definitely doing something thing very wrong…
The median age of sufferers with glioma is 38 years old. In other words, someone who will have been exposed to EMR for the majority of their lifetime.
Diagnoses of childhood ADHD have climbed more than 30% in the eight years to 2019 in the US.
I in 2 people born after 1960 are likely to be diagnosed with some form of cancer. (In 2011 it was published as 1 in 3).
Even scientists are asking if rises in EMR are contributing to the five-fold increase in neurological deaths!
And let me repeat, these are facts based on rigorous scientific protocol.
In 2015 an international appeal signed by over 160 scientists from around the world called for “the United Nations and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organisation to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development.”
“We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.”
Of course, it’s impossible to avoid all exposure to EMR, that horse has well and truly bolted. But it is possible to stack the odds in your favour by minimising your levels of exposure — your body burden — within your home. At the absolute minimum I recommend you turn off domestic wi-fi routers and any wi-fi emitting devices at night to allow your body to heal itself of the environmental tolls of the day un(further)burdened.
This is vital because when you sleep your body literally repairs itself. It clears sticky waste plaque from your brain (something believed to contribute to dementia) and it destroys potentially mutating cells (that might otherwise become cancerous). Ensuring optimum sleep is essential for wellbeing and yet the statistics for how many of us achieve this, are shocking. Only 18% of Brits get the recommended 8 hours a night.
To me the proliferation of wi-fi connected devices with their associated drive for faster and easier, is indicative of our current cult of fatal convenience. Arguably, it’s hand in hand with the why-recycle-when-I-can-just-throw-stuff-away mentality? Short-term thinking with no regard for the future consequences. More on this in a coming post.
Here’s 13 things to do to protect yourself…
Use ethernet cables to connect to the internet.
Disable auto wi-fi/Bluetooth functions on all devices.
Always use corded headphones or the speaker function when using a mobile.
Buy a EMR protective case for your phone.
Install a cabled landline telephone not a hands free model.
Use an independent cabled internet connection rather than one that uses a phone line so that you can switch it off at night without it registering as a fault.
Do not use AirPods.
Ditch all the Alexas and any other only wifi enabled devices. Use your brain instead!
Refuse smart meters. Or house them within EMR shielding boxes.
Put any devices for children onto Airplane mode after downloading content.
Likewise any wearable step trackers or watches.
Limit your children’s device usage to build healthier habits
Model the same behaviour yourself.
And regarding the argument of but what’s the point of me doing this when I’m picking up wi-fi from my neighbours? If you were standing next to someone who was smoking, would this justify you lighting up as well?
Take responsibility for your own actions. And what of speaking to those neighbours, sharing the info, and who knows, you might convince them to disconnect their wi-fi at night too! Win/win.
Bottom line, should it be unequivocally proven at some point in the future that EMR is entirely benign, I won’t exactly have inconvenienced myself by switching my own lights on and off. And in the interim, I slept like a baby.
UK government in court
If any of this resonates with you, you might also be interested to know that the UK government are currently being taken to court over its failure to inform the public over the risks associated with 5G. In a case led by “the king of human rights work” Micheal Mansfield QC, who has previously represented the families of Grenfell Tower, Lockerbie, the Ballymurphy Massacre and Stephen Lawrence, the case rests on the following…
The government has thus far failed to:
Take into account the extensive evidence showing that radiofrequency radiation from masts and wireless devices puts health and life at risk.
Carry out a full and independent examination of the risks.
Properly inform the public of the dangers so we can decide how to protect ourselves.
Instead:
The government continues to adopt guidelines which the independent scientific research shows is unsafe for humans, animals, and the environment
Why does this case matter?
5G will add significantly to the emissions we already have from mobile phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, smart meters, and other ‘smart’ devices.
The effects of 5G on all biological life have not been tested, and there have been no safety studies into short or long-term health effects. Basically, no-one can unequivocally state that 5G is safe.
This issue concerns everyone as the consequence of inaction could be serious and irreversible damage.
You can read more and donate to support this case here.
And this is important because unbeknown to many, our National Planning Policy Framework guidelines have been quietly updated to read as directly pasted below in Section 10, entitled ‘Supporting high quality communications’ regarding approval of infrastructure like telecoms masts…
10.Supporting high quality communications
114. Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections. Policies should set out how high quality digital infrastructure, providing access to services from a range of providers, is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time; and should prioritise full fibre connections to existing and new developments (as these connections will, in almost all cases, provide the optimum solution).
115. The number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion. Use of existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communications capability (including wireless) should be encouraged. Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.
116. Local planning authorities should not impose a ban on new electronic communications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of electronic communications development, or insist on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development. They should ensure that:
1. a) they have evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest; and
2. b) they have considered the possibility of the construction of new buildings or other structures interfering with broadcast and electronic communications services.
117. Applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. This should include:
1. a) the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college, or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome, technical site or military explosives storage area; and
2. b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or
c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.
118. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.
Finally, here are a selection of extracts from an Open letter from Olle Johansson, Associate Professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Institute of Environmental Medicine, which provides authorities in Sweden and the EC as well as international organisations like The World Health Organization (WHO) with expertise, support and advice regarding environmental health risk assessments.
