2

I have always assumed baby monitors and all wireless technology to be completely safe and have been informed by a 'friend' that I have been endangering my children by using them.

We used an RF detector to measure exposure and it amounted to a constant level of 10mw/m2 in the crib, whereas, for comparison, my cell phone at 30 cm distance measured occasional peaks of 1mw/m2. More advanced wifi monitors measure up to 100mw/m2.

She mentioned the following links as evidence of her fears:

https://www.electricsense.com/897/radiation-from-baby-monitors-would-you-blow-smoke-in-your-babies-face/

This site claims:

Well, guess what? Your kid may not be doing so great. The baby monitor next to their slumbering form is emitting radiation similar to the kind that is given off by a cordless phone and bombarding their not-yet-fully-formed skull with electromagnetic frequency radiation. These emissions are a known cause of childhood brain cancer...

Why introduce a known carcinogen into your home? Would you have a cigarette in your baby’s room and then blow the smoke in their face? I don’t think so…….

https://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-radiation/high-frequency-electromagnetic-fields/monitors-radiation

This site claims

There has been a 60-fold increase in ASD in recent years, which cannot be accounted for by improvements in diagnostic methods and can only be explained by changes in the environment. This increase corresponds in time to the proliferation of mobile telecommunications, Wi-Fi, and microwave ovens as well as extremely low frequency fields from household wiring and domestic appliances. We can now explain at least some of this in terms of electromagnetically-induced membrane leakage leading to brain hyperactivity and abnormal brain development. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, former lecturer Imperial College London [1] Andrew Goldsworthy, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, MCSA NEWS, VOLUME seven, ISSUE 7, JULY 2012

And also...

Wireless radiation emitted by baby monitors, mobile and cordless phones, wireless modems (Wi-Fi) etc.:inhibit the formation of abnormal electromagnetic activity of the brain, which is stabilized at around age 12, which explains the increasing incidence of hyperactivity and epilepsy in children ages according to Dr. Gerard Hyland, biophysicist at Warwick University and 2 times nominated for the Nobel Prize of Medicine [3] cause the creation of many random and useless neural connections, which explains the usually larger skull of autistic children, according to Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, former assistant of Imperial College London [4] Detunes the initial calibration of the brain networks and the mirror-neuron system in newborns, leading to autistic behavior patterns (Thornton [5]) and are a possible cause of the contemporary increase in cases of autism (Kane [6]) "The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented." Paul Rosch, professor of medicine at New York Medical School [7]

These mainly rely on evidence as reviewed in the Bioititiative Report, which I know is widely criticized.

So, have I been endangering my children or is my friend just nuts? I fail to see how such miniscule emissions could have a measurable effect on anyone, thermal or otherwise. Is there any robust evidence that radiowaves have any negative impacts on the development of young children?

  • 2
    Where is the "notable claim" you are questioning? – Daniel R Hicks Aug 5 '18 at 22:46
  • 2
    One reason for asking for a notable claim is to find out what alleged dangers might be caused to a child. If cancer is a concern, this is already answered here – Oddthinking Aug 6 '18 at 4:32
  • 6
    Sigh. I'm so sick of "radiation" fearmongering. Lightbulbs emit dozens of watts of "radiation" in the form of visible light. Radiation only means something that radiates, not necessarially anything to do with alpha particles, beta particles, gamma or x-rays, or any other form of ionising radiation. Changing the source from "phone" to "baby monitor" doesn't change one thing. Radio emissions are non-ionising and not dangerous unless imitted in wavelengths and quantities sufficient to cause heating (and I think you'd notice that!) – GordonM Aug 7 '18 at 9:45
  • 6
    Amazingly, Goldsworthy (one of the sources for quotes in the question) seems to start his evidence with the idea that magnetic water descalers work. This idea has been thoroughly tested and as far as we can tell is complete nonsense. His faith in this idea doesn't bode well for the quality of any other evidence he uses. – matt_black Aug 7 '18 at 12:35
  • 2
    @DevSolar How can you make that determination; that bursts are better than continuous transmission? Do note that if we assume that some magic physical/physiological mechanism is involved here, and that radio waves can cause all manner of ill health... and that the conventional wisdom that radio waves are of too low frequency to be able to affect us is not valid... why then would that other conventional wisdom — the one that states "the dose makes the poison" — be valid, hm? You just invoked the latter. But on what grounds? – MichaelK Aug 15 '18 at 11:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .