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?

Community
  • 1
JeebieHeebies
  • 39
  • 2
  • 2
    Where is the "notable claim" you are questioning? – Daniel R Hicks Aug 05 '18 at 22:46
  • You might get an answer on Health.SE. Here you'd have to search out a notable source. Such a source might not exactly match your question. – Brythan Aug 06 '18 at 02:34
  • [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) We have a rule that only widely-held beliefs are in scope for this site (or at least, claims made by notable people and organisations that are widely seen). Please [provide some references](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-question/883#883) to places where this claim is being made. – Oddthinking Aug 06 '18 at 04:31
  • 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](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/569/do-mobile-phones-have-anything-to-do-with-brain-cancer) – Oddthinking Aug 06 '18 at 04:32
  • Cell phone being dangerous is a common belief, if you could find uour friend's claim supported for a notable source. you could edit your question to fit skeptics rules. – bradbury9 Aug 06 '18 at 07:01
  • Well the battery could always suffer a thermal runaway and explode or start a fire... Is that unsafe? – GordonM Aug 06 '18 at 09:47
  • FWIW most phones support flight mode with wifi enabled (so no 3G/Bluetooth but wifi works) and while 3D safety is a contentious issue AFAIK there is no serious claim about wifi being dangerous. – Tgr Aug 06 '18 at 11:37
  • I added two links, not reputable sources in any sense of the word, which is why I'm asking here. – JeebieHeebies Aug 06 '18 at 11:45
  • The sources do make specific claims. I've added one (but it is about cancer, which might make it a duplicate). The other link has tons of material much of which comes from Magda Havas whose claims about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation have been debunked here before. – matt_black Aug 06 '18 at 14:13
  • @JeebieHeebies: Thanks for the links. We still need to do some work though. Link 1 has an claim about DECT devices, including cordless phones and baby monitors. If you want that to be your claim, we need to focus the question on that (and remove the remarks that no-one claims baby monitors are bad, because this link contradicts that!) – Oddthinking Aug 06 '18 at 14:42
  • Link 2 is to a library of videos, that we can't expect a reader to sit through looking for a claim. If one makes a claim you are interested in, please link directly to it, with a time code and a quote. – Oddthinking Aug 06 '18 at 14:43
  • Again, be careful that this isn't already answered (for example [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4838/is-this-new-study-on-cell-phone-cancer-connection-legitimate) or [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/569/do-mobile-phones-have-anything-to-do-with-brain-cancer). – Oddthinking Aug 06 '18 at 14:44
  • I have added some more source material and have rephrased the question. Hopefully this helps. I am focusing on non-cancer-based effects, so I don't think the previously answered questions address this fully. – JeebieHeebies Aug 06 '18 at 18:48
  • 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 07 '18 at 09:45
  • @GordonM I would be inclined to agree. I am certainly not scared of my phone and don't 'feel' the wifi in my home. I'm obviously a lot more cautious when it comes to young children and want to know if there's any valid evidence indicating that radiowaves could be in some way harmful. – JeebieHeebies Aug 07 '18 at 12:18
  • 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 07 '18 at 12:35
  • The answer would very much depend on the baby monitor in question. Back when this was an issue for us, we were able to locate a brand that *does not* have a constant emission, but "goes active" only for short range checks once per minute and when actually transmitting. Note that this is a rather different angle from the question whether the radiation emitted *is* actually harmful, at which point you'd have to look askance at all the *other* devices in your house your child will be routinely exposed to. – DevSolar Aug 15 '18 at 08:32
  • 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"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison) — be valid, hm? You just invoked the latter. But on what grounds? –  Aug 15 '18 at 11:02
  • @MichaelK: I was basically replying to the second paragraph of the OP, "We used an RF detector to measure [...] *a constant level of* [...]", by pointing out that this could be *either* a question of "does a constant level of X harm the child" *or* a question of "are all baby monitors as noisy as this". I admit I got a bit off track, but basically I am asking the OP to clarify what is being asked. – DevSolar Aug 15 '18 at 11:11
  • 1
    @DevSolar Measuring levels over time is pointless until we have answered the question in the headline: is there any danger **at all** for a baby to sleep near a baby monitor? Until we have concluded that there is a danger to begin with, it is as meaningless and absurd to discuss what kind of radio waves would be most dangerous as it is to discuss which are the most friendly and tamable ones: white unicorns or black unicorns? –  Aug 15 '18 at 11:20
  • @MichaelK: Personally I feel that "dose makes the poison" is much less contentious than "radio waves are harmless". (Which might be illustrated by the fact that research is done on the letter, SAR ratings are given for mobile phones etc.) Now, would you please get off my back for merely pointing out that the *specific* baby monitor OP is citing for reference might be an outlier, as far as energy emitted is concerned? – DevSolar Aug 15 '18 at 11:28
  • 2
    @DevSolar No I will not get off your back on this because if one conventional wisdom can be challenged then **all** of them can be. Especially so in this debate since one researcher — Leif Salford of Lund University — did contend that research showed that a lower intensity of mobil phone radio caused a more severe effect. Salford got heavily criticised for his claims since 1) he had made claims that mobile radio does have a negative effect 2) the researcher was a PhD student of his that tried to vindicate these claims and 3) there were severe methodological errors in the study. –  Aug 15 '18 at 11:35
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/81696/discussion-between-michaelk-and-devsolar). –  Aug 15 '18 at 11:35
  • For what it's worth, the monitor is just a basic Motorolla plug-in model. It claims to use an "eco" power mode but we found from testing that the transmission was constant. – JeebieHeebies Aug 16 '18 at 15:33

0 Answers0