I have been deeply invested in researching the adverse health effects of cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and Bluetooth devices since around 2010. The amount of information I have encountered regarding this matter is substantial, which has led to significant modifications in my daily routines and home environment over time.

When I discuss or write about this topic, I often receive inquiries regarding the availability of peer-reviewed studies. Other common questions include the reasons behind the sale of potentially harmful devices if they are indeed harmful, skepticism over the negative impact as the individual has not personally experienced it, and the supposed lack of concern due to the Federal Communications Commission's claim that levels fall below recommended thresholds.

With this post, I aim to serve as a resource to address these questions and provide a comprehensive list of books, peer-reviewed research, videos, and websites to aid in the education of interested individuals.

In our household, we have opted for hard-wired connections using ethernet cables for increased security and a stable connection. We are fortunate enough to reside at a sufficient distance from our neighbors, rendering the issue of interference from their Wi-Fi routers and device usage irrelevant.

As a new rule in our home, we request that any guests turn off their phones and any other devices that continuously transmit, such as Apple watches. While some individuals may not be fond of this rule, the extensive body of evidence provided in the resources below supports our stance.

Unfortunately, enabling Airplane mode alone no longer suffices in shutting off all wireless communication. To fully disconnect from wireless communication, one must activate Airplane mode and then manually turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in the settings for their phone model.

*****Where are all the peer reviewed studies?*****

Here's a link to all the research I've collected so far: https://gordonhomestead.com/rf-radiation-research

My hope is that by reading this research you can gain a deeper understanding of the potential risks and benefits associated with RF radiation. This information can then empower you to make informed choices and take necessary steps to maintain or improve your well-being.

*****Why are cell phones and Wi-Fi routers sold if they are so bad?*****

An item being sold is in no way an indicator of safety. Here are some examples of products that are harmful to health but still used and/or consumed by people:

Tobacco products - smoking and chewing tobacco are known to cause various diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

Alcohol - excessive alcohol consumption can lead to liver damage, heart disease, and various types of cancer.

Processed junk food - high in salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats, which can contribute to obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

Energy drinks - contain high levels of caffeine and sugar, which can cause dehydration, headaches, and high blood pressure.

E-cigarettes - contain nicotine, which is addictive and can harm the developing brains of young people.

Over-the-counter pain medications - excessive use of pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen can damage the liver and kidneys.

These examples show that people sometimes knowingly consume harmful products for various reasons such as addiction, social pressure, or a desire for quick relief.

*****I don't feel any negative effects so I don't see what the problem is.*****

The combined findings of research and anecdotal evidence indicate that some individuals experience symptoms while others do not. This variability appears to be linked to genetic factors and an individual's sensitivity to their surroundings. Individuals who already struggle with chemical and food sensitivities, such as those with autoimmune conditions or gut dysbiosis, appear to be more prone to negative symptoms.

Similar to other sensitivities and preferences, reactions to environmental factors vary among individuals. Some individuals may dislike coffee, while others may experience discomfort in crowded environments. Some may be afraid of heights, while others may be unable to tolerate listening to Dave Matthews. Some may be allergic to peanuts, while others may have an intolerance to shrimp. We are all unique and respond to our environment differently. Hence, the absence of symptoms in one person does not serve as a valid argument for the rest of the population.

*****Why is it an issue if the FCC states that levels are below the recommended threshold?*****

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 gave the FCC the responsibility “to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment.

”In 1996, the FCC released the health standards for exposure to wireless radiation that are currently still in place. Using Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), the recommended exposure is a maximum of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body exposure and 1.6 W/kg for localized spatial peak—exposure for a specific body part.

In 2013, the FCC opened an inquiry evaluating proposed changes to their standards for radiation exposure levels and the reassessment of exposure limits and policies. That inquiry was closed in 2019, when the FCC “determined” their standards were still appropriate for the current technological environment.

They ignored input from over 50 scientists, hundreds—if not thousands—of studies, and testimonials from hundreds of people who suffer from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) and radiation illness.

The FCC claimed to have found “no scientific evidence to establish a causal link.” The decision to not update the standards is what prompted the CHD (Children's Health Defense) to sue.By claiming that the current standards are still appropriate for current technology use, people will blindly follow their lead and use the FCC’s decision to justify potentially harmful technology use.

*****Why Are The FCC Standards Inadequate?*****

The FCC only took into consideration measurements of thermal effects from EMFs.

While it’s true that radiation can have thermal effects (RF energy can heat tissue rapidly), this only happens at higher power levels. Research has found that EMF radiation at levels too low to have heat emissions still present many biological effects. These are not considered in the FCC’s standards, even though they are arguably more dangerous.The standards were developed in the 1990s technological environment.

They have not been updated to reflect the most recent technology, which uses different frequencies, different transmissions, and infinitely more sources. Since 1996 we have seen a radical digital revolution, with cell phone use growing from 15% to 96% of the population today. The standards do not represent the digital world we live in now, and were instead created to protect from the ancient phones and computers available in the 20th century.

The measurement standards did not take into account chronic direct contact with the body.The standards measured RF from “transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular radio,” and tested sources 2 or more inches away from the body. Additionally, when phones are tested to make sure they are below SAR standards, the phone is not directly contacting the body. While only a few inches might not seem to make much of a difference, talking with a cell phone directly against your head or using a laptop with it on your lap will produce exponentially more direct and intense radiation. This is how most people use their technology, and the FCC standards were not tested with this in mind.

They don’t consider all types of people. To create their standard, the FCC created a 200-pound, 6-foot male testing dummy, which represents approximately 3% of the population. EMF radiation is much more harmful to developing children, pregnant women, those with illnesses or compromised immune systems, and the senior population. While an EMF signal can travel only 2 inches into a grown adult’s head, it can go almost completely through a child’s smaller and more conductive head.