[ Tim's web ] Home ] Up ] Site map ] Contact ] Feedback ] Bioenergy links ] GOOGLE Search ] [ Energy Systems ] [ Human Tests ] [ Protection Products ] [ Research ] [ Mailers ]

WiFi & Health Concerns

WARNING!  EMF radiation from this PC depletes your bioenergy! Get protection for your safety!

Your body has an energy signalling system that's vital for its proper function. See Energy Systems.  You need to protect it!
Don't exposure yourself to EMFs without protection. You wouldn't expose yourself to the sun for hours - you'd get skin cancer soon enough.  EMF is invisible and every day EMF stress affects your body putting your health at risk; a wide range of symptoms result. Just read What Doctors warnEMF radiation depletes bioenergy, compromising your immune system! There is a cumulative effect. Take advantage of my website to find out more about these modern day hazards.
An amazing new protection that really works is now available with GIA Wellness. You can avoid adverse health risks and enjoy a New Generation of Wellness in an increasingly electropolluted world. Electropollution is a real environmental toxin.

Especially don't expose your child to EMFs. They have a lifetime more to bear this and the full extent of risks is not yet known!

Wi Fi  and  Concerns over Risks to Health

Analytical Review by Andy Davidson,  h.e.s.e. Project, UK

The International h.e.s.e. Project (Human Ecological Social Economic) is a worldwide grouping of scientists and scientific institutions with different fields of specialization co-operating in a supernational, politically neutral way, not obligated to any economic interest groups.

  • In assessing the safety of electromagnetic environments, great care must be taken to observe relevant comparisons, to include scientific evidence, and to account for observed responses.

  • The technology is novel in human experience, the effects are most likely to be long-term, and the low levels are entirely comparative.

  • Environmental levels of electromagnetic fields should always be compared with the natural environment, not with other man-made sources.

Power and frequency

500 watts in a microwave oven at 2.4GHz will cook a potato in minutes.  A 500 watt light bulb in a metal box will not. Equating the energy or the number of photons emitted by a light bulb with any microwave device, as if the sensitivity of the human retina to light had any bearing on the electromagnetic response of a living cell membrane to microwave frequencies, is quite erroneous.  The light bulb is a very inefficient converter of electric energy to photons and the visible spectrum is far removed from the microwave. Photon sizes and energies are markedly different.

The comparison between WiFi transmissions and light bulbs is incorrect and irrelevant.

Latent bioresponse

Mammalian retinal cells respond chemically to visible spectra, which have been part of the natural environment within which the mammalian eye evolved: this was an evolutionary advantage under circumstances where latent biological response of cells to light already existed.  Microwave background radiation at 2.4GHz is not part of that evolutionary environment.  This does not mean that other cells have no response.  Had this radiation been present, the facility to use it may well have developed.  Sharks, for example have exquisite sensitivity to electric fields via electroreceptors (ampullae of Lorenzini).  The latent responsiveness of certain cells made this evolutionary development as likely as retinal response, thereby creating what we term the ‘visible’ spectra.

The assertion that because the human body has no attuned receptor to microwave frequencies there can be no effect, is a non sequitur.

Scientific knowledge

What we do know very clearly from very substantial research, is that body tissues do respond to electromagnetic fields at very low levels indeed.  We know that the response appears to be windowed by frequency and power (ie the response is non- linear, and specific ranges of frequency and power elicit greater response that those above and below these ranges).  We know that the effect is cumulative rather than purely instantaneous, and that cascade effects, from gene expression to protein modification, to cellular ion transport are all affected.  We also know that pulse-characterised signals such as employed in the WiFi (IEEE 802.11) standard elicit a stronger response than pure carrier frequencies.

The assertion that there is no scientific evidence for microwave fields affecting living organisms at the levels experienced in highly modified modern electromagnetic environments is plainly untrue.

Human experience

People burnt their hands on fire long before the mechanisms of oxidation and combustion were understood.  Many people, although they form a minority of the population, exhibit hypersensitive responses to many stimulants.  For some the problem is nuts, for others specific chemicals or mixtures, whilst others are triggered by electric or electromagnetic fields.  Observation in real life, where fields are highly complex, suggest that frequency combinations matter more than radical exposure in predicting how electrosensitive people will respond.

The assertion that because simplified provocation trials under laboratory conditions appear not to reveal a linear predictable response among people claiming to be sensitive, does not disprove their real-world experience.  It simply indicates that complex electromagnetic environments where other common factors may co-relate are not easily replicated in the laboratory.

Response and regulation

The most linear dosimetric bioresponse to electromagnetic fields is in the area of acute exposure where energy deposition results in thermal damage to tissue. Acute shock or rapid local heating will cause predictable damage.  There is no dosimetric assessment for low level exposure, despite exposure effects on whole living organisms (systems, not tissues) being well established.  The assessment and categorisation of any environmental circumstance should be with the natural condition, not with other sources.  We do not compare dioxins from chimneys with dioxins from other sources, but with an extremely low natural base.  We do not compare high tar and low tar cigarettes any more, but tar in general with the natural lung environment.  We should not compare WiFi with proximity to a mobile phone.  WiFi exposure levels in a classroom, for example, from a number of PCs and servers (not just the input power to a base unit or router) must be compared with natural environmental conditions at these frequencies.

There are no regulatory guidelines for chronic low level exposure to microwave fields around 2.4GHz, or any other non-ionising spectra.

Response and harm

It is often said that a biological response does not imply a risk to health. We are not harmed by the eye’s response to visible spectra providing this is not too intense.  The shark is not harmed by ambient electric fields, though it may be repelled by a strong field.  With microwave spectra there is no attuned organ or receptor, but we do know there is molecular and cellular response.  We also know that molecular and cellular cascade effects exist that, for example, help to explain the wide range of symptoms that characterise electrosensitivity.

The assertion that there is no scientific evidence for harm, though there is evidence of biological response, is disproved by the cascade effects of those known effects, which tend rather to explain the variety of felt experiences.

Conclusion and recommendations

  • WiFi and wireless networking is regarded popularly as innocuous because it is relatively new, readily available, cheap and convenient.  Convergence of wireless technologies brings undoubted efficiencies, so functionally it is very attractive.

  • Biological responses by living systems are well attested, anecdotal evidence of adverse reactions are very well established, and analysis of researched biological response suggest there can be long-term risk from exposure.

  • Refutation of potential harm is based almost entirely on erroneous and irrelevant comparisons.

  • Where wireless networks involve daily exposure by children, or by workers, in enclosed environments (particularly where there are microwave-reflective structures such as reinforced concrete, metal joists, steel furniture etc.) there is more indication of potential harm, than clear reassurance of there being no effect on anyone.

  • Continuous exposure to WiFi, even at these low levels, is not to be recommended.

For a PDF copy of Andy Davidson's paper - click   WiFi_Health1206.pdf

You have a sophisticated body electronics system that is vital to its function.  So don't allow yourself to be exposed to health risks invisibly imposed by EMF radiation from electric & magnetic fields and pulsed microwave transmission signals, which are at frequencies that disrupt your brain and cellular functions.  Cellphone and cordless phone use does carry well-established risks!  EMF stress occurs with all other electric and electronic devices, too.  There are adverse health effects - see What Doctors Warn.  Scientific studies have shown that EMF exposure has a cumulative effect, increasing over time.   Be sure to reduce the risks for your children who face a lifetime of exposure and those with poorer health conditions, they are especially at risk.  For an appreciation of this start at Child Risks.

Depletion of your body's bioenergy causes a lowered energetic capability, at a fundamental atomic level.  See Atoms & EMF.  Disturbance of it's inherent bioenergetic system results in disruptions to cellular functions and a compromised immune system.  Start at Energy Systems.  Quite simply, your body systems are no longer able to work in the way that they would if such destructive interference from EMR was not imposed on you.  To see how human energies are affected by common electronic devices see bioenergy test charts showing patterns typical of that experienced by everyone from Human Tests.

If you can't understand why the authorities are allowing you to be exposed to such risks, start at my Research page.  So-called "safety" regulations only consider thermal (tissue heating) effects, but frighteningly disregard low frequency biological effects. Strong vested interests resist change to this in spite of mounting evidence.  For your own health and safety, and sustainable wellness, you need to adopt the Precautionary Principle with some urgency to avoid the risks of the invisible hazard of EMR that do compromise your health.  You can now make use of the amazing new GIA Wellness protection available to reduce the effects of EMR, and have the chance to enjoy sustainable wellness.  See GIA Wellness Protection Products.

Find out more so you can immediately protect yourself and achieve optimal health in our increasingly electropolluted world.


Health and safety needs to be treated seriously.  Be sure to get GIA Wellness (formerly Biopro Technology) protection for others that you care about, too.  Tell others about my website and the wealth of information it provides so they can avail themselves of this and the amazing new Biopro protection against the adverse health risks of increasing exposure to EMF in our modern technological world.


Others to assist in worthwhile protection enterprise?

Do you know of any enterprising people who care about others and may like to join with me in this worthwhile undertaking of providing protection to others from this growing  EMF radiation hazard?  You'll enjoy an additional income stream, too.

* Free Bioenergy test subject to product purchase and reasonable proximity to me or you pay travel costs, all at my discretion.

Other sections - [ EMF Dangers ] [ Significant EMF News ] [ EMF Danger articles ] [ Energy Systems ] [ Human-Tests ] [ Protection Products ] [ Research ] [ Feedback ]

E mail Tim Leitch here or use my Feedback page.  Any hyperlink issues, please let me know by email.  Thanks.

Always being enhanced.
Copyright © 2005-2012 Tim Leitch.         Last modified: 13 Jul 2011
Any use of material from this site must include a clear link back to this website.

To Top