MacPrices.net

How Safe Is Your Wireless-Networked Laptop?

by Charles W. Moore

There's no denying that wireless networking is cool, and for good reason it has become one of the most popular innovations in the computing world, and probably the most revolutionary one since the popularization of Internet itself. Wiring is a pain, and wireless frees you from the spaghetti tangle of cords and cables that are otherwise necessary to keep your 'Book connected to the outside world, or just to your other computer across the room. I use my Apple laptops at several locations around the house, and in order to go online from wherever, I have to string phone extension cords and drag a modem cord around. Or... I could buy an Airport Base Station hub and Airport cards or adapters for my Pismo and iBook. (my 17-inch PowerBook has AirPort built in), and waltz around from place to place blissfully untethered. No more modem cables and phone cords, and I could largely dispense with my wired Ethernet network as well.

Bluetooth connectivity for peripheral devices is also extremely convenient. I especially like a little RadTech BT-500 Bluetooth wireless mouse I have.

However, both Bluetooth and Airport remain turned off most of the time on the Big AL, and the older 'Books remain bereft of wireless support, and this house is a wireless-free zone -- at least in a computer context, and likely to remain so until I'm convinced that electromagnetic pollution caused by wireless communication frequencies is not a health hazard. As yet I'm not. Unfortunately, I've been following, researching, and writing about this issue from time to time since 1999, and there is still no really conclusive evidence either condemning electronic frequency emissions from cellphones and other wireless communication and networking devices, but neither have they received a convincingly clean bill of health.

I'm not staking out a strong advocacy position that RF emissions from these systems are harmful. I'm an ignoramus as far as radio transmission engineering goes, and I'm not a health care professional or expert. My own policy in the matter is based on the precautionary principle -- that the burden of proof rightly rests on positively determining the harmlessness of wireless radio frequency emissions rather than proving harm.

What I am suggesting is that the issue of wireless networking ought to be addressed with a lot more prudent caution than seems to be the case. The thought of classrooms full of schoolchildren using AirPort-equipped desktop Macs or iBooks day in and day out, being exposed to radio frequency emissions at close range, makes me distinctly uneasy given the level of ignorance on this issue.

To anyone who suggests that saying this amounts to "FUD" or "fearmongering," I repeat that I do not know whether this sort of radio frequency exposure is a significant health hazard, but neither do you know for sure that it is NOT a significant health hazard. One thing I do know is that I take rote assurances of safety from industry and government regulatory sources with a large grain of salt. I want to see the research data and the methodology behind it on which such assurances are based.

I'm also skeptical about patronizing affirmations by persons with conflicted interests in this issue that any such speculation is irresponsible hysteria, and that there is "nothing to worry about." There indeed may be nothing to worry about, but I don't think anyone can make that categorical assurance given the current level of knowledge/ignorance on these matters.

This month, Reuters reported that a new study by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life (electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a recognized disorder in Sweden) looked at mobile phone use of 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number of healthy control cases, and found that use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk of brain tumors. Published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, the study defines heavy cellphone use as 2,000 plus hours, which "corresponds to 10 years' use in the work place for one hour per day," and tracked a significantly higher risk of tumor on the side of the head where the cellphone was generally used - in heavy users of mobile phones, a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the "phone side" of the head.

For the full report visit here.

In February, itbusiness.ca reported that Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada has banned wireless Internet access on campus until university president Fred Gilbert is satisfied that EMF (electric and magnetic fields) exposure doesn't pose a health risk, particularly to young people. Gilbert told ITBusiness.ca that he based his decision on scientific literature that indicates the potential for "some fairly significant" health consequences, citing studies done by scientists for the California Public Utilities Commission, whose findings boil down to the fact that while there is no proven link between EMFs exposure and diseases such as leukemia and brain tumours, the possible risk warrants further investigation.

For the full report visit here:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=38093&PageMem=1

An Apple KnowledgeBase article entitled: AirPort Base Station: Minimum Safe Operating Distance (which has apparently been taken down as the URL no longer works) noted:

"To operate within safety guidelines established by the FCC, you should locate an AirPort Base Station such that users are always at least 20 cm (about 8 inches) from the device.

"You should use wireless equipment in a way that minimizes human contact during normal operation. The AirPort Base Station is designed to be used at a distance greater than 20 cm.

Well, who uses an AirPort base Station within eight inches of their body? Not very many people, I imagine. However, if eight inches is a problem, what about nine inches, or a foot, or two feet. It seems implausible that any danger magically cuts off at the eight inch threshold.

Apple's AirPort networking system operates in the 2.4 GHz Frequency band at an output power of 15 dBm, while cellphones use the 800MHz to 1.9 GHz band The power output level of cellular phones can range from 0.006 of a watt to 0.6 of a watt for handheld units and three to six watts for portable units. 2.4 GHz is even farther into microwave territory than the cellphone frequencies, and people will be exposed to emissions from wireless LANs for much longer periods of time than all but the most addicted cellphone users. Could the cumulative effect ultimately be as bad or worse? I'd like to know.

Bluetooth also operates in the range of 2.4 GHz to 2.4835 GHz. However, as Wikipedia notes, "the radiated output power of Bluetooth devices is very low in spectrum and in time, so a possibility of posing risks to health is low, too. Bluetooth devices can operate continuously or sporadically (on demand), so total exposure to EMF radiation is very variable."

Environmental levels of background radio frequency and microwave background radiation have been rising by factors of thousands in the general population since the Second World War -- and according to EPA estimates are increasing at about 15% per year, including radio waves from radio and TV towers, microwaves from cell phones, cell sites, mobile phones, cordless phones, computer LANs and microwave ovens (the latter being a minor problem compared with the others).

Health concerns associated with EMF exposure are not limited to dread diseases like leukemia and other cancers. CTV News reported that electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is regarded by the World Health Organization (WHO as a real health problem, with reported symptoms -- ranging from mild to severe -- that include chronic fatigue, depression, body aches, memory loss and sleep disruption. The report notes that Swedish and British statistics say about two or three per cent of the population suffers from EHS, while some claims estimate 10 to 25 per cent of national populations may be affected by mild symptoms.

More information about EHS including a list of possible symptoms can be found here.

Magda Havas, a professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, has been using filters for electronic devices to reduce the potentially harmful levels being emitted. has been using Graham-Stetzer filters, which lowers the dirty electricity power emitted by electronic devices....

Havas said the use of filters in homes has also yielded amazing results, especially for diabetics and those with multiple sclerosis. You can find out more about these filters here:

http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/

She said blood sugar normalized in those with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, while multiple sclerosis sufferers who had difficulty walking were able to walk without pain in a few days to a few weeks.... For the full report visit here.

In a 2004 paper entitled Elecrtromagnetic Fields & Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposures to EMFs", Prof. Havas says that "We now have more than 20 years of scientific research from around the world showing adverse health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from our use of electricity. Both children and adults are affected although children appear to be more sensitive.... There is a consistent 2-to-4-fold risk of children developing leukemia when they are exposed to magnetic fields exceeding 2 to 4 mG in their homes.... Studies of occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields report an increased incidence of adult leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer at levels above 2 mG.... These studies in combination with laboratory studies lend credence to the concept that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human health at levels to which we are currently exposed to in the home, at school, and in the workplace."

Prof. Havas says: "My research deals with the health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy at the extremely low frequency range associated with electricity (60 Hertz) and at the radio frequency range commonly associated with wireless telecommunication. I am particularly interested in monitoring exposure of the population in urban centres to radio frequency radiation and power-frequency fields. Since children are more sensitive than adults to the potentially harmful effects of EMFs I have been trying to encourage school boards to measure magnetic fields within their schools as part of their health and safety program. I also provide information to people who are concerned about antennas, power lines or transformers being built near their residence and am currently trying to help with a Private Member's Motion that will establish guidelines and standards that reflect recent scientific studies and will truly protect public health.

Allegations of a wireless hazard have also been a topic of controversy in Cook County, Illinois, (near Chicago), where some parents of students at Oak Park Elementary School District No. 97, sued the school in 2003 over alleged potential health risks associated with radio frequency exposure. Each of the 5,000 students in the Oak Park School system was issued an Airport-equipped iBook, and the District had set up a wireless wide-area network to connect its schools to one another way back in 1995, and subsequently wireless networks added inside each school to provide wireless computer and Internet connectivity in classrooms.

According to one report cited, "effects of exposure include reduced absorption of calcium, headaches, and even the threat of senility."

That study is available in PDF format here:
http://www.elektrosmognews.de/salfordjan2003.pdf

The legal complaint by the Oak Park parents reads, in part:

"Specifically, the Defendants have installed wireless networks in each of the school buildings under its jurisdiction. In so doing, the Defendants have ignored the substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children. The Defendants have thereby breached their duties of care to the children of District 97....

"District 97 however failed to adequately examine and assess the potential health risks that wireless LANs pose to humans, particularly children who are still growing....

"In fact, there is a substantial and growing body of scientific literature studying and outlining the serious health risks that exposure to low intensity, but high radio frequency (“RF”) radiation poses to human beings, particularly children. For example, responsible scientists have reported that prolonged exposure to low intensity RF radiation can break down DNA strands, cause chromosome aberrations and break down the blood-brain barrier, thereby permitting toxic proteins to invade the brain. And, these occur at radiation levels below what a child would be exposed to by sitting in front of a computer on a wireless network....

"Other researchers have observed other potential health risks that they believe are traceable to exposure to low intensity RF radiation at levels that are at or below the levels that children would experience by using wireless LANs in a classroom. In fact, at present, the lawyers for the Plaintiffs and their clients have collected more than 400 scientific articles, summaries and references outlining health risks from low intensity RF radiation exposure, all or most of which have been researched and written after 1995. By way of example only, attached as Exhibit 2 is a listing and a summary of thirty-one articles, all of which deal with the potential health risks from prolonged exposure to low intensity RF radiation, i.e., radiation given off by, among other things, wireless LANs....

"Defendants have stated publicly that they have examined the current, prevailing government regulations relating to safety of wireless technology and the system installed in District 97 poses no health risks to humans. This statement is false. The only U.S. standards that relate in any way to radiation exposure were developed by the F.C.C. before 1993 and relate only to thermal radiation. The radiation that Plaintiffs object to here is non-thermal and the federal government has not promulgated any standards relating to this. 20. The state of scientific uncertainty is further reflected by the fact that different nations have different exposure standards."

A link to download the entire text of the complaint can be found here:
http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/illinoislawsuit.pdf/illinoislawsuit.pdf

Oak Park District school officials have maintained that Wi-Fi "doesn't pose any significant health risks," but has also cautioned students and teachers "to stay at least eight inches away" from the Airport hubs.

A timesonline.co.uk article asks: "are wireless devices, such as Bluetooth, safe?....

"This is, according to the NRPB [National Radiological Protection Board], an unclear area. It notes the proliferation of new technologies such as 3G, Bluetooth, wireless local area networks and even radio tagging devices. Generally, wireless networks have a relatively low power output. It is uncertain how all the disparate signals and power outputs interact. The NRPB recommends more research on both this and any possible biological effects caused by widespread background exposure."

According to Milt Bowling, executive director of the Canadian Electromagnetic Radiation Task Force in a recent alive magazine article, "there are now decades of research and more than 20,000 studies, some showing DNA breakage, chronic fatigue, cancer, and other fatal or harmful results [from exposure to microwave radiation]." Bowling cites a $7 million study released last year by the California Department of Health Services which found that exposure to household electricity is linked to increased risk of male and female breast cancer, miscarriages, suicide, Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), Alzheimer's, sudden cardiac death, and leukemia and bone cancers in children and adults.

Also noted by Bowling is a recent study that confirmed as little as a two-minute cellphone call causing the blood brain barrier to leak, and another study showing that even after hanging up from a two-minute call, the subject's electrical pattern in the brain was still altered a full hour later.

In researching this column, I've discovered that there seem to be relatively little research data available on the issue of possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic emissions from computer communications specifically. Most studies in this area have focused mainly on cellphones.

Apple's AirPort networking system operates in the 2.4 GHz Frequency band at an output power of 15 dBm, while cellphones use the 800MHz to 1,990MHz range. The power output level of cellular phones can range from 0.006 of a watt to 0.6 of a watt for handheld units and three to six watts for portable units. 2.4 GHz is even farther into microwave territory than the cellphone frequencies. Microwave ovens operate at 2.45 gigahertz -- a frequency that causes water, glucose, and fat molecules to rub together and heat up.

Users will be exposed to emissions from wireless LANs for much longer periods of time than all but the most addicted cellphone users. Could the cumulative effect ultimately be as bad or worse? I'd like to know before I expose myself and my loved ones to wireless networking emissions. Microwaves are generally known to be unfriendly to living tissue, and it occurs that zapping yourself with them on an ongoing basis, even at low levels, is not the brightest plan.

Microwave News reports that data from ten studies of EMFs and childhood leukemia indicate that the association with measured magnetic fields is "remarkably consistent across studies," according to Dr. Sander Greenland of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Some scientists contend that because radiation from cellphones does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds, it cannot damage cells. The only way damage could occur, they say, is if the radio waves heated tissues up. But British research in 2002 by molecular toxicologist David de Pomerai at the University of Nottingham, showed that radio waves can cause biological effects that are not due to heating. He found that nematode worms exposed to radio waves showed an increase in fertility - the opposite effect from what would be expected from heating (New Scientist print edition, 9 February, 2002).

de Pomerai insists that a consensus is emerging that non-ionising radiation can indirectly damage DNA by affecting its repair system. If the DNA repair mechanism does not work as well as it should, mutations in cells could accumulate, with disastrous consequences. "Cells with unrepaired DNA damage are likely to be far more aggressively cancerous," he says.

A Finnish study that found clear effects in the laboratory on human cells after one hour's exposure to cell phone-type radiation. The radiation seems to affect a variety of proteins in the cells, leading them to shrink. Though there is no evidence that this is a health risk, some scientists worry that such changes in the brain--right next to the phone--might increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, which could be dangerous.

In a document posted on the Web in February 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration noted that "[T]here is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a [health] risk to millions of users."

U.S. patent 6,506,148 notes that:

"Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near 1/2 Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set."

Researchers in Sweden have found that radiation emissions from cellphones could lead to conditions such as Alzheimer's Disease.

The immune systems of rats exposed by scientists at the University of Lun to as little as 2-minute zaps of microwave pulses similar to those from a mobile phone were found to be damaged, which in turn "allowed dangerous toxins and proteins to travel from the blood and enter the brain. Once in the brain tissue, there was a higher risk of developing brain or nerve diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis."

The neurologist who carried out the study is quoted saying that: "We saw the opening of the blood-brain barrier even after a short exposure to radiation at the same level as mobile phones."

A link between mobile phone use and memory loss was established in a controlled study by a hospital in Bristol, England. Richie Blackmore, a professor of physiology at Oxford university and former lead guitarist for the '60s rock group Deep Purple, was quoted saying that "There is evidence of an adverse effect on cognitive function, memory and attention [when using mobile phones."

One of the effects of exposure of human tissue to electromagnetic radiation is thought to be the production of free radicals, which are uncharged groups of atoms containing an unpaired electron, that are very chemically reactive. According to Cyril W. Smith and Simon Best in their book, "Electromagnetic Man, "living organisms need free radicals in order to be able to use oxygen to get energy, but also require means of getting rid of them when no longer required. Free radicals may be produced by either chemical or electrical processes, and can give rise to unwanted chemical reactions that may lead to disease."

Under normal circumstances, the body's free radical scavenging mechanisms work well enough, but increased biological stress caused by emotional factors, physical trauma, chemical toxicity, or infection -- or electromagnetic radiation -- can simultaneously increase free radical production while inhibiting the body's free radical defenses. Long-term consequences may include various inflammatory degenerative disease conditions often associated with immune system dysfunction, or even cancer.

Free radical reactions are only harmful when they get out of control, say Smith and Best -- this risk being "the price organisms must pay for evolving beyond the anaerobic single cell by using oxygen to increase their efficiency in converting nutrients to available energy."

However, they note that our environment is increasingly polluted with synthetic chemicals and electromagnetic fields which contribute to the biological stress that increases free radical production and overloads the body's free radical regulatory systems.

Until there is a lot more research available on this issue from disinterested third parties, my own personal policy of "prudent avoidance" will include prudently avoiding wireless LANs, the same as I don't use cellular and avoid cordless phones. Happily, in my case that has not been difficult so far, but I'm concerned that it may become more so as wireless technology becomes more intricately integrated into laptop computers for instance. For many others who will be exposed in work or educational settings, prudent avoidance will be virtually impossible. My kids are grown, but if they were still of school age, I would not want them sitting in classrooms full of wireless enables computers every day.

As I implied at the beginning of this article, I expect that some people who read it will be annoyed that I brought the topic up. There is widespread and understandable enthusiasm for the convenience of wireless technology. It could be that I and others are being hyper-cautious about this, and if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that exposure to low-level radio emissions is safe, I'm willing to listen. However, I want to hear it from sources other than those financed by industry or politically-sensitive government regulatory agencies, or from techno-enthusiast cheerleaders.

For more information on this topic, here are some useful links:

By Kevin Byrne and Dave Stetzer of Stetzer Electric ask: "Could Dirty Electricity be making you and your Family Sick?," and offer these computer-related tips:

• When replacing your computer monitor or TV, buy a new LCD, they emit much less EM radiation.

• If possible, use a laptop PC on battery power and plug it in to charge when you are gone or take a break.

For more information, visit:
http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/tips.htm

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site addresses the issue to some degree, although is focused on mainly cellphones:
http://www.fda.gov/cellphones

Information on biological effects from exposure to non-thermal levels of radiofrequency radiation is linked at:
http://www.emrnetwork.org/news/news.htm

Going to http://www.ieee.org and searching on "rf radiation hazard" will produce a list of references.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/AUT29-F.pdf (master citation list, as on 8 January 2003, in use by the subgroup SC-4 of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety)

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/sc4/SC-4%20Minutes-June%202002.pdf

http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm

CM