Safety of RF levels from baby monitor

ThatsMyWall

I always assumed baby monitors and similar radio devices were completely safe but have been recently 'informed' 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 cot, whereas, for comparison, my phone at 30 cm distance with wifi enabled measured occasional peaks of 1mw/m2. More advanced wifi monitors with video measure up to 100mw/m2 at a 1m distance. Ours is just a basic plug-in model.

Is this measurement of any significance? How could such a miniscule amount of power cause anything more than a .000000000001 increase in body temp?

Is there any evidence to indicate that such long-term exposure could be harmful. I mean the kids have yet to sprout extra limbs or display superhuman abilities....it would be cool, however, if I could blame their wild behaviour on 'bad energy'.

Mods feel free to move this thread if it's better suited elsewhere...

coylemj

The fact that you're asking anonymous people on the internet speaks volumes. You've already been 'informed' by sources unknown (to us) that it may be harming your child, but you chose not to quote any sources (reliable or otherwise) for this 'information'.

When it comes to technology or medicine, it's like this: it you research any topic on the internet long enough, a phenomenon known as 'confirmation bias' will ensure that you will eventually find what you want to find.

Does the gadget have any FCC (Federal Communications Commission) or similar logos embossed or printed on the specifications panel or label?

ThatsMyWall

coylemj wrote: »

The fact that you're asking anonymous people on the internet speaks volumes. You've already been 'informed' that it may be harming your child, but you chose not to quote any sources for this 'information'.

Does the gadget have any FCC (Federal Communications Commission) or similar logos embossed or printed on the specifications label?

Well to be honest there are no sources as such, just the usual quackery websites that blame electronics for every known illness or malady.

I just find it interesting that mobile phones are under so much scrutiny when devices like baby monitors and cordless phones generate more energy. I am assuming that all such devices are safe as they are well within the limits of international guidelines and am just wondering if there is any research which may indicate otherwise.

coylemj

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

Well to be honest there are no sources as such, just the usual quackery websites that blame electronics for every known illness or malady.

I just find it interesting that mobile phones are under so much scrutiny when devices like baby monitors and cordless phones generate more energy. I am assuming that all such devices are safe as they are well within the limits of international guidelines and am just wondering if there is any research which may indicate otherwise.

Are there any logos on the device indicating that it meets standards laid down by some reputable body? I mentioned the FCC in the US.

mordeith

I doubt whoever informed you has any real evidence to backup their claim

ThatsMyWall

coylemj wrote: »

Are there any logos on the device indicating that it meets standards laid down by some reputable body? I mentioned the FCC in the US.

The manual states the following:
Caution: To maintain the compliance with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines,
hold the transmitter and antenna at least 1 inch(2.5 centimeters) from your face,
and place the Baby Unit at least 20cm from nearby persons.

coylemj

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

I just find it interesting that mobile phones are under so much scrutiny when devices like baby monitors and cordless phones generate more energy.

The 'scrutiny' you refer to concerning mobile phones is nothing but hysteria drummed up by local politicians desperately searching for a 'cause' which will get them attention. A planning application for a local phone mast is a gift from heaven for them.

And despite an endless series of reports which debunks any claims of health risks, the mood of the age is that you can't trust them so-called 'experts' so Luddites and technophobes continue to get airtime and press coverage to push their crackpot theories about how technology is slowly poisoning us.

ThatsMyWall

coylemj wrote: »

The 'scrutiny' you refer to concerning mobile phones is nothing but hysteria drummed up by local politicians desperately searching for a 'cause' which will get them attention. A planning application for a local phone mast is a gift from heaven for them.

And despite an endless series of reports which debunks any claims of health risks, the mood of the age is that you can't trust them so-called 'experts' so Luddites and technophobes continue to get airtime and press coverage to push their crackpot theories about how technology is slowly poisoning us.

That's the impression I get from researching this too. Most of the websites claiming harm also have something to sell.

I wouldn't usually take any notice of such carry-on but do prefer to take a cautious approach when it comes to children. That said, with baby monitors being so ubiquitous and widely used, any harmful effects would probably be quite obvious by now.

coylemj

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

I wouldn't usually take any notice of such carry-on but do prefer to take a cautious approach when it comes to children.

+1 which is why objections to applications for planning permission for mobile phone masts always quote the distance to the nearest school.

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

That said, with baby monitors being so ubiquitous and widely used, any harmful effects would probably be quite obvious by now.

The biggest risk that technology poses to children is when mammies make or take calls on the mobile while driving (not hands-free) with the kids on the back seat.

ED E

Yeah lets worry about the 100mW 2.4Ghz transmitted but ignore the 100W 2100Mhz transmitter down the road. These waves are extremely weak, if you're worried a tinfoil hat will block them.

endacl

Tinfoil nappies.

Be grand.

Twenty Grand

Did you measure your pho e when it was calling out or just passive?

ThatsMyWall

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Did you measure your pho e when it was calling out or just passive?

I measured when it was passive. In use, it was around 1-2mw/m2 for wifi and 10 or so for making a call. We have good coverage here though, hence the low power. When we measured in one room of the house where the signal drops to one bar, it was closer to 200mw/m2.

ED E

Have to ask, how does some random joe who has to ask a question like this have a meter that costs upwards of €500 and more likely about €6000?

ThatsMyWall

ED E wrote: »

Have to ask, how does some random joe who has to ask a question like this have a meter that costs upwards of €500 and more likely about €6000?

It's not mine, but I think it cost around €150. I think electrosensitive people use it so they know when to feel ill.

ED E

Right, that says it all.

seamus

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

Is there any evidence to indicate that such long-term exposure could be harmful.

None, whatsoever.

We now have decades of data and nothing to suggest that our use of RF at the intensities you find in typical settings have any effect.

The only data that ever suggested anything, found a correlation between childhood leukaemia and the proximity of pylons/substations to homes.

But the incidence in general is small, so it was noted that there are many reasons why this correlation may exist - e.g. poor people tend to have higher rates of cancer, and also tend to live in cheap houses, which tend to be closest to pylons and substations.

That study found that even though there was insufficient data to suggest a causal link, since the cost of putting in mitigation/protection to this infrastructure was relatively small, then that should be done "just in case", because at worst it would make no difference to the rate of leukaemia in the local area.

ThatsMyWall

seamus wrote: »

None, whatsoever.

We now have decades of data and nothing to suggest that our use of RF at the intensities you find in typical settings have any effect.

The only data that ever suggested anything, found a correlation between childhood leukaemia and the proximity of pylons/substations to homes.

But the incidence in general is small, so it was noted that there are many reasons why this correlation may exist - e.g. poor people tend to have higher rates of cancer, and also tend to live in cheap houses, which tend to be closest to pylons and substations.

That study found that even though there was insufficient data to suggest a causal link, since the cost of putting in mitigation/protection to this infrastructure was relatively small, then that should be done "just in case", because at worst it would make no difference to the rate of leukaemia in the local area.

Thanks. This more or less answers my question. Anyone who believes radio/microwaves to be harmful tends to fall back on the same few studies that have been debunked or couldn't be replicated. Recall bias is also an issue in epidemiological studies. The Bioinitiative Report seems to be most commonly used source, even though it was rejected by most government authorities.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

That study found that even though there was insufficient data to suggest a causal link, since the cost of putting in mitigation/protection to this infrastructure was relatively small, then that should be done "just in case", because at worst it would make no difference to the rate of leukaemia in the local area.

This is the classic cop-out by people lacking balls. It's similar to the 'conclusions' at the end of other (multiple) reports which state that there is 'no evidence' but that ........ 'more studies are needed'.

It's as though the world of science has more or less accepted that these people won't go away. Which they probably won't but the last thing we need is more 'studies' which get us nowhere.

Cordell

I think electrosensitive people use it so they know when to feel ill.

Is that the same affliction that affected Charles McGill?
Is the irony lost when electrosensitive people are using electric devices?

Household devices are completely safe.

xckjoo

coylemj wrote: »

This is the classic cop-out by people lacking balls. It's similar to the 'conclusions' at the end of other (multiple) reports which state that there is 'no evidence' but that ........ 'more studies are needed'.

It's as though the world of science has more or less accepted that these people won't go away. Which they probably won't but the last thing we need is more 'studies' which get us nowhere.

I disagree with your assessment that it shows "lack of balls". It's extremely difficult to prove something is without any realm of possibility so nobody that knows what they're on about will say that it's impossible. In reality there's probably a near zero chance, but the world is so full of variables it's foolhardy to be so definitive about things. Plus it would leave them wide open to lawsuits if some new information arose in the future.



Fair play to OP on your level-headedness. You came in with as much info as you could gather and took on what people said to you. That's rare these days!

ThatsMyWall

Cordell wrote: »

Is that the same affliction that affected Charles McGill?

Yes, it is. That was the first time I heard of it. I think it's common in Sweden. They can claim disability for it....

ThatsMyWall

xckjoo wrote: »

Fair play to OP on your level-headedness. You came in with as much info as you could gather and took on what people said to you. That's rare these days!

Thanks! I just wanted to make sure that my assumptions of safety were still correct. I'd hate to miss out on all the joys and conveniences of wireless technology for no good reason.

Kuva

New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer

ThatsMyWall

Kuva wrote: »

New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer

You know that study is possibly one of the most reassuring on the safety of phones. Those poor rats were blasted with way more RF energy than your average person would experience and lived until a respectable age, longer in the case of those in the test group (but of course noone will claim that phones makes us live longer). Cancer rates followed the usual trends. I think there was an unusually low number of heart schwannomas in the control group which is why the number in the male rat group was considered significant.

This is a good discussion of the results.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cell-phones-and-cancer-random-chance-in-clinical-trials/

coylemj

ThatsMyWall wrote: »

You know that study is possibly one of the most reassuring on the safety of phones. Those poor rats were blasted with way more RF energy than your average person would experience and lived until a respectable age, longer in the case of those in the test group (but of course noone will claim that phones makes us live longer).

+1 if that study shows a 'link' between mobile phone usage and cancer then it's a risk I can live with, given that I don't hold a mobile against my head for 19 hours a day.....

The exposures began when the rats were fetuses and continued for 19 hours a day until the animals died from natural causes.

The same scare stories were bandied about concerning microwave ovens when they first appeared in bars and cafes in the 1970s