do display screens give out harmful radiation price

According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), "there is no convincing scientific evidence that computer video display terminals (VDTs) are harmful to the eyes."  The common complaints of eye discomfort and fatigue are associated with ergonomic factors such as distance from the person to the monitor, monitor height and brightness, etc.

I have a colleague who is pregnant and who types at a computer. How much radiation does her baby receive at a typical computer? Is there a lead shield that she could wear? Like an apron?

Regulations of the US Department of Health and Human Services require manufacturers to test computer monitor emissions for radiation and to label them attesting to the fact that they have been found to meet the standards of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. You should be able to find this label on the rear of the computer monitor or the computer processor. Health studies of pregnant women who work with VDTs have not found harmful effects on the women or on their children. Heavy lead aprons or other shields are not considered necessary for units that meet the x-ray emission standards of 21 CFR. Such shields may actually be counterproductive from an ergonomic point of view.

Radiation emissions from VDTs (for example, television sets and computer monitors) are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers are required to test and label these products.  Regulations limit radiation emissions from electronic products to levels considered safe.

I have heard a lot of answers about the ill effects of computer radiation but almost all that I have read claim no certainty in their answers. Has there been any valid and indisputable answer to this?

This means that if there are health risks they are too small or of a kind that have not been detected by current methods. Scientists often say that they "cannot disprove a negative," meaning that it is not logically possible to prove that something does not exist. This is because the list of things to be disproved can be endless, and the type and level of sensitivity of the tests that are used can always be improved upon.

I"m getting a computer for my child and would like to know which type of monitor/computer is safest in terms of the different types of radiation that exist. I was told years ago that the flat screens had a different, yet worse, type of radiation. Are there two types of radiation, and is this type worse?

All television receivers (including computer monitors), regardless of type, must meet a mandatory federal performance standard so any x-ray emissions, if they exist at all, must be at very low levels.  I am unaware of two types of radiation, unless you categorize the visible light which you see on the television screen as one type, which is, in fact an electromagnetic radiation; You can also consider radiowaves, which are also electromagnetic radiation. Both of these types of radiation are nonionizing and generally considered safe unless one is exposed to very intense levels.

All television receivers (including computer monitors), regardless of type, must meet a mandatory federal performance standard so any x-ray emissions, if they exist at all, must be at very low levels. The key point is that the emission standard is for "any point on the external surface" which means whether someone is in front of, to the side of, or behind the display or receiver, he/she is protected against any potential emissions of the display to the same degree.

My mom worries about the effects of computer radiation. She says that I am putting my health at risk by being on my PC more than four hours a day. Is this true?

The radiation emission from any computer is RF (radiofrequency) waves. There is no proof that these are harmful unless the intensity is high enough to warm tissue (like a microwave oven). You are not putting yourself at risk (from radiation) by being on your computer more than four hours a day.

My grandchildren often sit with their laptop computers in their laps. Is there any danger to their health and reproductive organs from low-level radiation that may be reaching them?

The only measurable radiation emission from a laptop computer is radio waves. We are constantly exposed to such radiation from all directions and multiple sources, including radio and TV signals, electronic appliances, etc. Current data indicate that these are not harmful to our health. There is, however, quite a bit of heat generated within the laptop while it is on. It is for this reason manufacturers recommend against extended periods of use with the computer on your lap.

The information posted on this web page is intended as general reference information only. Specific facts and circumstances may affect the applicability of concepts, materials, and information described herein. The information provided is not a substitute for professional advice and should not be relied upon in the absence of such professional advice. To the best of our knowledge, answers are correct at the time they are posted. Be advised that over time, requirements could change, new data could be made available, and Internet links could change, affecting the correctness of the answers. Answers are the professional opinions of the expert responding to each question; they do not necessarily represent the position of the Health Physics Society.

In this post, I’m going to tell you how computer monitors emit EMF radiation, how much they emit, how you can test this, and what you can do about it.

(Just a quick note before we move on. I would love for you to take just a minute and check out Nicolas Pineault’s groundbreaking E-book “A Non-Tinfoil Guide To EMFs.” It is the most entertaining and informative book on EMF radiation you’ll ever read, I promise.)

There are primarily three types of radiation sources that a computer monitor is likely to have, UV light radiation, x-ray radiation, and EMF radiation. Which radiation, and how much they emit, will depend largely on the monitor. Let’s talk a little bit about each kind.

There are basically two categories of monitors: cathode-ray tubes, and the flat-screen monitors that you see today, which are typically either LED or LCD based screens.

Prior to about 2001, almost all monitors were using cathode-ray tube (CRT) technology to power the screens. However, these types of monitors generate, and leak, small amounts of highly dangerous X-Ray Radiation. Although this had been recognized since the 60’s as being dangerous, it was not until the late 1990’s that manufacturers really fell under scrutiny for continuing to make a knowingly dangerous product.

This led to the manufacturing of Light Emitting Diode (LED) and liquid crystal display (LCD), which is what I used for nearly all modern monitors (and televisions)

Exposure to x-radiation is obviously extremely harmful and is an unfortunate bi-product of older style cathode ray tube (CRT) type monitors. The electronics in these old monitors generated extremely high voltages that would often result in x-ray radiation.

Although x-radiation that you could receive from one of these older style CRT monitors is dangerous and harmful, it is much less than you would receive from a medical x-ray machine or the x-ray at the dentist. This is the reason that they have you wear led vests to protect your body from the radiation.

Later versions of CRT monitors were slightly safer, as manufacturers began to take steps to reduce this x-ray radiation by adding lead to the cathode ray tube, which helped to cut down on this issue.

The EMF meter that the gentleman is using in this video is the older version of the Trifield meter, the company now has the new TriField TF2 (read my review), but we’ll talk about that a bit more down below in the section about measuring computer monitor radiation.

Ultraviolet light (UV) is much less harmful than x-ray radiation, but high amounts over a long period of time can still certainly cause harm. Some monitors actually have a fluorescent lamp that is part of the illumination. When the ultraviolet light strikes a white phosphor, the visible light that you see is created, but it has the side effect of sometimes leaking ultraviolet light out.

Luckily they make screen protectors for computer monitors that not only block 100% of the UV light but also help to filter out blue lights that can cause computer vision syndrome (CVS) from longterm exposure to computer monitors.

The EMF Radiation from your computer monitor will be relatively small and come from circuitry in the back of the unit. As you can see from the video above when he is testing an LCD monitor, there is still a noticeable amount of EMF radiation, but you have to be quite close.

This amount of radiation is enough to cause damage over time. In fact, a study showed that the radiation emitted from a monitor was enough to destabilize the oxidant/antioxidant balance in the cornea’s of rats over even a small amount of time.

The Long Island Power Authority did a study where they measured the average EMF radiation from many home appliances. Although they did not specifically test LCD or led computer monitors, they did test led and LCD televisions. Here are the numbers they came up with at the following distances:

As you can see, there is quite a large amount of EMF radiation at VERY close distances, but if you sit at least three feet away from the screen, you will not much need to worry about EMF radiation exposure. Be sure that you don’t sit so far away that you strain your eyes, but do keep at least 3 feet between you and the screen.

This applies to almost anything that you want to test, but you first need to start by getting a high-quality EMF meter. I personally use, and love, the new TriField TF2 (read my review). It is super easy to use, incredibly accurate, and measures every kind of EMF radiation, which you’ll realize is really important. If you need to start with a lower cost version I also like the Meterk (read my review).

Getting a good EMF meter is one of the absolute best things you can do if you care about the dangers of EMF radiation. Whether it’s figuring out how much radiation your Smart Meter is emitting, or testing to see if your microwave is leaking radiation, or comparing cell phone radiation, having a good EMF meter is the first step in knowing what the problem is, and knowing if your solutions are working.

Now, to test the radiation from a computer monitor, start by turning the monitor off, and getting a baseline reading near it. Then, turn the monitor on and give it a few seconds to boot up.

Start from about 5 feet away, and slowly move towards the monitor with your meter. Take notes of the radiation levels at different distances and note how it exponentially increases as you get within a few inches.

First of all, computer monitors do emit a relatively small amount of EMF radiation at reasonable distances. So the absolute best thing you can do is keep at least a reasonable distance (3 feet or more) between you and the monitor whenever possible.

They don’t seem to make a good shield for computer monitors that are actually intended to block EMF radiation, but they do make this window film that you can pick up on Amazon, that you could cut to fit the size of your monitor if you really wanted to reduce the amount of radiation you’re exposing yourself to.

Although it won’t block radiation, if you are staring at a computer or tv quite a bit during your day, you should consider picking up a pair of glasses that block the blue light rays. This will help protect your eyes from long term exposure.

Even the World Health Organization admits that EMF radiation at certain levels can trigger symptoms like headaches, stress, suicide by depression, vomiting, fatigue, and loss of libido.

Unlike the two products mentioned so far, this Screen Protector exclusively obstructs blue light. It’s not mean to attenuate radiation but to shield your eyes from the harmful effects of blue light.

Yes, but it’s mostly the old CRT monitors that are concerning. Newer LCD screens don’t emit as much. The more immediate threat stems from the blue light they emit.

It depends on your distance from the monitor. Inches away would give you 25-500 mG of EMF radiation, 1 foot emits 0.4-20 mG, while 3 feet emits just 0.1-1.5 mG of radiation.

Monitors emit such a low level of radiation that most agree it’s not a concern. However, even low levels over long periods of time have induced side effects like headaches and depression.

Certified EMF Expert, Chief Editor & Researcher at Beat EMF. I’m in charge of testing all the products and sorting through the duds to deliver effective EMF solutions for your family. Learn more about me here.

Since the advent of modern flat-panel screens, the vast majority of computer monitors have few, if any, radiation safety issues. The older technology used with vintage monitors, however, does have a potential for emitting certain types of harmful radiation, though manufacturers were aware of the risks and designed them to be safe. Overall, radiation safety issues from monitors are very minor and easily mitigated.

Monitor Types Computer monitors have used two basic types of technology: traditional cathode-ray tubes and more modern flat-screen designs. Before 2000, most computer equipment makers produced CRT-based monitors. These create images by sending a high-voltage beam of electrons in a vacuum tube to a phosphor screen, causing it to glow. The high voltage generates weak forms of radiation, a fact manufacturers have recognized since color TVs became widespread in the 1960s. Flat-screen monitors, by contrast, dispense with the CRT, creating images using a finely detailed grid of liquid crystals. Inside a flat-screen monitor, a bright lamp produces white light, which the liquid crystals filter into a broad range of colors. Although this technology uses low voltages, some of the lamps used produce mild radiation.

Radiation Types The radiation that comes from computer monitors takes the form of X-rays and ultraviolet light. This is not the same radiation normally associated with radioactive materials such as uranium, although it is associated with long-term exposure risks to living things. Of the two radiation types, X-rays are more harmful as they have more energy. Where monitor designs have the potential to produce X-rays or UV, the manufacturer adds materials that block the radiation, greatly reducing the safety issue.

X-Rays Traditional CRT-based monitors use high voltages that generate X-rays. The voltages used in black-and-white monitors is much lower than that found in color models, so X-rays are an issue only for the latter type. X-rays from a computer monitor are much weaker than those produced in a medical X-ray, as the operating voltage is lower and the radiation is a side effect, not the intended purpose of the design. CRT manufacturers solved the X-ray problem by adding lead to the glass picture-tube material.

Ultraviolet Although ultraviolet light is less harmful than X-rays, high levels of UV can burn skin and even cause blindness. Some flat-panel computer displays employ a fluorescent lamp as a bright light source. In the lamp, ultraviolet light strikes a white phosphor, creating visible light, but a small amount of the UV also escapes. In most LCD monitor designs, a layer of plastic absorbs the UV, minimizing the safety risk. Some flat-screen computer monitors use light-emitting diodes in place of fluorescent lighting, eliminating the UV problem completely.

Premature skin aging caused by computer screens has been dubbed “computer face,” as older desktop computers have been shown to emit UV light, which can lead to lines, wrinkles and skin damage.

Newer computers and laptops, however, don’t emit UV light at all. Instead, they’re typically equipped with LCD or LED screens, which aren’t harmful to your skin.

While your laptop, tablet and cell phone screens don’t emit harmful UV radiation themselves, use of these devices outdoorsin the sun could put your skin at a greater risk ofskin cancerand other skin damage. This is because your screens can act like a mirror and reflect UV light from the sun onto your skin.

To avoid unnecessary UV exposure when using your laptop or other devices, try to limit using them outdoors in direct sunlight and always wear sunscreen.

Since many of us spend a lot of time watching television, electromagnetic radiation from televisions is a cause for concern. So how much radiation does a TV emit? We are exposed to a small amount of EMF radiation from our television on a daily basis. The amount of EMF radiation emitted largely depends on the screen size, type of TV, screen brightness and resolution.

Older versions of televisions using CRT (cathode ray tube) emit a little more radiation than the latest flat screen televisions (LED), which emit less radiation. Televisions have many components that usually contribute to the amount of EMF radiation emitted. Also, there are different types of radiation that you can be exposed to while watching your favorite television show.

To find out how much radiation is emitted, you can use an EMF meter to measure the electromagnetic radiation next to your TV when it is off and the TV is on. Common radiation emitted by different types of televisions includes radio frequency, magnetic, and electrical radiation. By measuring the specific amount and type of radiation emitted by your TV, you can find suitable ways to reduce the risk of exposure.

Flat screen TVs or Liquid crystal displays (LCD) use fluorescence technology and are powered by CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps). Fluorescent light from these displays is extremely dangerous. Therefore, you should stay away from the screen of these televisions to decrease your exposure. Also, the circuit board emits a small amount of radiation.

Smart TVs emit a lot of radiation compared to other TV types. They give off ELF (extremely low frequency) radiation continuously. Smart TVs emit both radio frequencies and Bluetooth radiation. Smart televisions are equipped with an operating system and a wireless receiver that allows the television to connect to the Internet. The TV connects to a wireless router to transfer data. In this way, you can access channels like Hulu, Netflix, and others. The TV searches for connections to the wireless router constantly. As a result, it gives off Bluetooth radiation and RF radiation.

Connecting your Smart Television to an Ethernet network rather than connecting to a wireless system or WiFi router does not guarantee that the amount of radiation emitted will be reduced. The Bluetooth and Wi-Fi functions are by default always on and emit electromagnetic radiation, even when you are not using them.

They discovered that sedentary behaviors, such as excessive television and computer use, were linked to a 35% increased risk of colon cancer in men, but not in women. However, it is important to realize that the association doesn’t necessarily mean a causal link in this case. Thisstudydid not show that watching television increased the risk of colon cancer. The time you spend watching television has been shown to be related to your risk of colon cancer.

All computers create – and therefore emit EMFs, which are a source of EMF radiation no matter how small. In the early days of personal computers, most people used CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors. Bulky, square monitors once filled office desks, though most have now been replaced by sleeker, slimmer, and healthier LCD monitors. Besides, all laptops use LCD screens and LCD screens aren’t EMF radiation-free. However, studies have shown that they give off lower EMF radiation than CRT screens.

Keeping distance from your TV, whether a Smart TV or an older style TV, will reduce exposure to radio frequency, Bluetooth radiation and other EMF radiation emitted by the TV. Smart TV sets emit more radiation than other types of TVs. Therefore, before buying any TV, always consider the amount of radiation you may be exposed to. The size of the TV and brightness of the screen also contribute to the level of radiation emitted.

Children are more vulnerable to the amount of radiation emitted since their brain is not fully developed. Therefore, ensure you limit the amount of hours they spend on the screen playing games or watching cartoons and other shows. Ensure they stay far away from the TV screen to reduce the risk of exposure to them.

Cell phones emit low levels of non-ionizing radiation when in use. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones is also referred to as radio frequency (RF) energy. As stated by the National Cancer Institute, "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating."

SCENIHR. 2015. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF): http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf, accessed December 7, 2020.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon, France: IARC; 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102.

Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, et al. Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: Results from five Interphone countries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011; 68(9):631–640.

Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, et al. Authors" response to: the case of acoustic neuroma: Comment on mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014; 43(1):275. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt186

Aydin D, Feychting M, Schüz J, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: A multicenter case–control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011; 103(16):1264–1276.

Castaño-Vinyals G, Sadetzki S, Vermeulen R, et al. Wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and neuroepithelial brain tumours: Results from the international MOBI-Kids study. Environment International 2022; 160:107069.

Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kännälä S, et al. GSM mobile phone radiation suppresses brain glucose metabolism. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 2011; 31(12):2293–301.

Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kännälä S, et al. No effects of short-term GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using positron emission tomography. Bioelectromagnetics 2012; 33(3):247–256.

Hirose H, Suhara T, Kaji N, et al. Mobile phone base station radiation does not affect neoplastic transformation in BALB/3T3 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 2008; 29(1):55–64.

Oberto G, Rolfo K, Yu P, et al. Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice. Radiation Research 2007; 168(3):316–326.

Zook BC, Simmens SJ. The effects of pulsed 860 MHz radiofrequency radiation on the promotion of neurogenic tumors in rats. Radiation Research 2006; 165(5):608–615.

Lin JC. Cancer occurrences in laboratory rats from exposure to RF and microwave radiation. IEEE J of electromagnetics, RF, and microwaves in medicine and biology 2017; 1(1):2–13.

Gong Y, Capstick M, Kuehn S, et al. Life-time dosimetric assessment for mice and rats exposed in reverberation chambers of the 2-year NTP cancer bioassay study on cell phone radiation. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(6):1798–1808.

Capstick M, Kuster N, Kuehn S, et al. A radio frequency radiation exposure system for rodents based on reverberation chambers. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(4):1041–1052.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP note: Critical evaluation of two radiofrequency electromagnetic field animal carcinogenicity studies published in 2018. Health Physics 2020; 118(5):525–532.

Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, et al. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2018; 28(2):147–160.

Brzozek C, Benke KK, Zeleke BM, Abramson MJ, Benke G. Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and memory performance: Sources of uncertainty in epidemiological cohort studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(4). pii: E592.

Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Röösli M. A prospective cohort study of adolescents" memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environmental Health Perspectives 2018; 126(7):077007.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved December 7, 2020.

Computer screens and television sets work similarly, producing both electric and magnetic fields at various frequencies. Screens with liquid crystal displays (LCDs) don’t produce significant electric and magnetic fields.

For this reason, modern TVs, which generally use LCD, LED, or plasma screens, emit only small amounts of radiation. But it’s enough that you should keep children from getting too close. Watching from a couch several feet away is thought to pose little danger.

All wireless devices sold in the United States are certified by the FCC that they don’t exceed FCC exposure limits. The FCC incorporates a safety margin in these limits. If the FCC learns that a device doesn’t perform according to its disclosure, the FCC can withdraw its approval.

Microwave ovens are considered to be safe if you use them correctly. People have experienced burns and other injuries from microwave radiation and superheating, but mostly from misuse.

Microwave ovens also must have safety features to prevent the generation of microwaves if the door is open. FDA tests ovens in its lab to make sure its standards are met. All ovens sold in the United States must have a label stating that they meet the safety standard.

You also get short-term high exposures when you are near electrical appliances like refrigerators, microwaves, and washing machines. The EMF radiation drops off sharply as you move away from these appliances.

Wireless devices have become a part of our daily life and work. As someone who uses them professionally, I decided to measure their electromagnetic radiation to see if they are a threat to my health. The results may be interesting to you.

No, this is not an article for the fifth generation mobile communication standard. In this text, you will learn about the amount of radiation emitted from devices such as wireless routers, smartphones, dumb phones, Bluetooth keyboards and mice, laptops, radio triggers for strobes, tablets, and other equipment.

The term "radiation" has gained quite a lot of negative fame because of nuclear power plants. Taken out of context, radiation doesn"t mean anything negative unless you know what is emitted. A fire stove radiates heat. In this article, I will call it EMF radiation, which stands for electromagnetic field radiation.

When electric current travels through wires, it generates a magnetic field around them. The antenna is two pieces of wire with running alternating current. Imagine you have a battery and two wires. Connecting each to one of the battery terminals creates a current in one direction and when you switch the plus and minus terminals you reverse the current flow. That"s basically how alternating current works: it switches positive and negative current. On each polarity change, a electromagnetic wave is created just like when you make a wave in a pool of water. The more frequent the changes are, the more waves are generated. The number of polarity switches per second determines the frequency of the waves in units called Hertz (Hz). If you do a manual switch, the frequency will be one or two switches per second or 1-2 Hz. The power cables in your home are running alternating current that is 60 Hz, which means there is a device (generator) that generates current of different polarity 60 times per second.

Can"t we use the 60 Hz power cables to transmit data? Why do we use devices of such a high frequency as the 2.4 GHz router? The answer is: yes, we can use 60 Hz for data transfer, but it will be very slow.

Let"s forget about electronics for a while and pretend we have two people on two mountain peaks that send smoke signals to each other. They have agreed to send a number of smoke signals during each hour of the day. The number of smoke signals determines a letter of the alphabet. For example, from 1 pm until 2 pm, one of them sends three smoke signals. This is the letter "C," being the third letter in the alphabet. During the light part of the day, they can send messages only with dozen letters. They have to wait for the next hour or the next day in order to send the next letter.

That"s how wireless communication works (a very simplified description of frequency modulation or FM). Each wave that is sent contains a small package of information. If we pretend we are sending one letter per electromagnetic wave, this means we can transfer 60 letters per second. Sending the text of this article over a 60 Hz network would last about six minutes, which is very slow for today"s standards. This is why they have decided to raise the number of waves per second in order to send more data in less time, and that"s how we ended up with gigahertz communication.

Electromagnetic radiation is different from nuclear plants" radiation. With a dosimeter, you can measure the radiation of foods, building materials, rocks, etc. The electromagnetic radiation is not measured with those devices, but with specialized EMF meters. They work like radio receivers, which analyze the received electromagnetic waves and display the result from the analysis on the screen. There are cheap meters that have only one antenna (one-axis meters), and in order to show correct results you have to point them in the right direction. They can cost less than $50, but can give quite false results. There are more expensive tools that have three-axis antennas that analyze the signals in 3D space, so you don"t have to point them to a specific direction. That"s the kind of tool I purchased for these tests: Extech 480836.

During the tests, I used both devices I work with and devices I borrowed from friends. The measurements have been provided at spots where the meter gives a zero reading without the device. This helps ensure that the values on the display will be those that are introduced by the tested equipment. The photos have been made with a DSLR without any wireless activity.

The EMF meter is designed to measure high frequencies, which means the magnetic fields" radiation from the power cables are filtered away. The meter is factory calibrated to show an alarm above 0.4 uW/cm^2. We will talk more about the effect from different values and the established standards further on in the article. For now, keep in mind that most of these devices are set to warn you when they reach levels above 0.4 uW/cm^2.

Fewer and fewer people today use desktop machines. Those that do are aware of the power per dollar advantage, but many others swap the power for mobility by using a laptop, especially with the function for Wi-Fi connectivity. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are almost identical technologies (from a radio frequency standpoint), because they work in the 2.4 GHz range, but they differ in their power consumption and protocol of communication. Bluetooth is used for close-range devices (wireless mice, keyboards, graphic tablets, smart watches, communication of your phone with your car). Wi-Fi is used for connection with devices that are farther away. For that reason, Wi-Fi consumes more power and drains your battery faster.

The meter shows a value between 4 and 6 uW/cm^2 with occasional peaks up to 13-15 uW/cm^2 on the device. The more internet-heavy the operation is, the more radiation is emitted.

The radiation gets weaker the same way as light: by the inverse square law. This means that by doubling the distance from the source, the radiation gets four times weaker. A laptop with Wi-Fi and active internet use has about 1.5 - 2.2 uW/cm^2 radiation about four inches from it. About a hand distance (two feet), where your head is, the radiation is between 0.4 and 1.0 uW/cm^2.

I have tested laptops with metal casing (2010 MacBook Pro, 2017 MacBook Pro) and one that is all plastic (an old Toshiba Satellite). The radiation at the top was identical. The radiation below the laptop was different: those with metal plates at the bottom blocked some of the signal. It was about 0.4 - 0.7 uW/cm^2 when the internet connection was actively used.

Even if the laptop is not used, but turned on, there are applications that are connecting to the internet for various reasons: checking email, checking for new messages, checking for software updates, etc. This means it will generate radiation.

Those are the computer devices that usually utilize the Bluetooth as a connectivity protocol. When not used, they do not radiate anything. When using a standard three-button wireless mouse, the meter showed between 1.0 and 1.8 uW/cm^2 radiation. A wired mouse had no radiation. The further the device is from the computer, the more radiation it emits. I have measured values up to 9 uW/cm^2.

The same tests were performed with a wireless keyboard. When Bluetooth on the computer was turned off, the keyboard showed higher radiation values, as it was trying to find a device to connect to. After connecting, it emitted radiation only when keys were pressed. A value of 0.9 uW/cm^2 was measured.

The same test were performed with a wireless Wacom Intuos Pro tablet, and it showed similar results when in use. Using those devices with a cable (even with a wireless adapter on the graphic tablet) showed no radiation at all.

The most common routers today are the 2.4 GHz ones. There are routers on higher frequencies as well, such as 5 GHz, as well as combined with several frequencies. I tested a 2.4 GHz and a combined version. As a side note: 5 GHz router is not a 5G thing. 5G is "a fifth generation" communication standard, where the antennas work on frequencies between 30 and 300 GHz. That"s not the case with the wireless routers.

Although nobody puts the router on their head, I found that the radiation right on the device was 50 uW/cm^2. Three feet away from it was about 0.54 uW/cm^2, and seven feet away it was about 0.19 uW/cm^2. The 5 GHz router had a radiation value of 1.8 uW/cm^2 about seven feet away from the device.

The router is a piece of equipment that allows distribution of one connection stream (cable) between multiple devices. The connectivity can be achieved via wireless signal or with a cable. If you prefer to use an internet connection with a cable, do not forget to turn off the Wi-Fi of the computer as well as the Wi-Fi of the router. Most of you know how to turn off the wireless connectivity of the computer, but it"s a bit harder on the router. Older routers had a button for switching Wi-Fi on and off. Most modern routers allow changing of that setting when you open their network address from your browser. They will show you a "web page" where you can find the wireless settings and turn the wireless connectivity off. In order to do that, first make sure that your computer has an internet connection with a cable and with Wi-Fi turned off. Then, you can follow the steps to turn off the Wi-Fi from the router. In order to do that, you have to find its network address.

On Windows, press the Windows keyboard key + R, and you will see a small window with a field to type a command into. Type "cmd" and press "Enter." In the terminal window that will open, type "ipconfig" and press "Enter." Find the line that reads "Default Gateway" and you will see a network address like "192.168.1.1" or something similar.

On Linux, open the "terminal" application where you must type "route -n" and then press "Enter." The network address of the router is under the "Gateway" column.

On Mac OS X, press the loupe at the top-right corner and type "terminal." Press "Enter," and in the terminal window, type "route -n get default" and press "Enter." Find the line "gateway." That"s the router address.

Put the router address in the address field of the browser, and you will see a page with a login and password prompt. Most routers have username "admin" and password "admin" as credentials. Some have an empty password. If those don"t work, search for "default user name and password for [your router]."

These devices are usually connected via Wi-Fi or have a SIM card to allow internet connectivity via mobile communication providers. When their screens are off (but Wi-Fi is turned on), they have constant peaks usually in the 4-6 uW/cm^2 range (sometimes quite higher) every few seconds depending on the behavior of the installed applications. The intervals I measured were 5-6 and 30-40 seconds. About two feet away from it (where your face is), the values are between 0.6 and 1.0 uW/cm^2. If children use the tablet, they will be closer to the device, and the radiation power will be greater.

I tested an Android phone, an Apple iPhone, and two models of the so-called "dumb phones." The smartphones were tested with Wi-Fi on and off, when talking, and when browsing the internet. The old phones were tested with phone calls only. One should note that 4G signals use frequency bands partially out of range of my measuring device.

The common thing with all smartphones is that the most radiation comes from the Wi-Fi and the mobile used data. If you are making a long phone call and you have Wi-Fi or mobile data on, the peaks from the internet activity will cause higher radiation values.

The measured values of Wi-Fi-enabled phones were with peaks between 4-6 uW/cm^2 when the phone was actively used for internet connectivity, e.g. watching videos. The radiation was measured on the phone itself. About two feet away the radiation, drops to about 0.6 uW/cm^2 with occasional peaks.

The greatest difference in the measurements was during the phone calls. The Android phone had the lowest radiation, with maximum values between 0.6 and 1.0 uW/cm^2. The iPhone was next, with radiation values above 2 uW/cm^2.

The job of these devices is to be connected to your phone. They have the same performance regardless of your phone"s wireless connectivity options. They are like small routers that emit radio frequencies to communicate with your phone. They usually work on 2.4 GHz and emit between 4 and 7.0 uW/cm^2 almost constantly, even if you are listening to a music file on your phone. The reason for the radiation is the wireless communication with your phone.

Turning the battery pack on had a peak of about 1.5 uW/cm^2 for less than five seconds, and then, the meter showed zero. The sender (or the trigger) device on the camera showed about 0.06 uW/cm^2 when firing the flash and about 0.2 uW/cm^2 when changing the power settings. With the information above, I can say that this piece of gear has almost no radiation.

Lavalier microphones are very handy when you want to work quickly, capturing a subject from longer distances and without any wires. I tested a Sennheiser lav mic kit that works between 600 and 700 MHz (0.6 to 0.7 GHz).

It"s a very popular piece of gear. I use it mostly for backup sound recording. The receiver has very low radiation, while the sender showed values between 10 and 30 uW/cm^2. The radiation from the microphone (connected to the sender) was about 5 uW/cm^2. The reason for that radiation is probably the volume of information the device is trying to send, because they want to give you a signal with the greatest quality.

There are two schools of thought that try to answer this question. The first one is the official position of governments and official health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO). The latter published an article in 2006 saying that they have invested a great amount of resources into EMF side effects, and they didn"t find any relation between diseases, especially cancer, and radio frequency radiation, though they note public perception often differs significantly.

There can be many other sources of EMF, like smart meters, smart refrigerators, baby monitors, neighbors" routers, etc. I found that standard aluminum window blinds (even opened) shield from the outside exposure and lower it about 3 times. Any metallic mesh (with small holes) does the same. A second layer of any of these improves the shielding. There are commercial products, such as blankets, hats, and clothing.

From all the measurements, I found that Wi-Fi enabled devices had one of the greatest radiation: between 4 and 17 uW/cm^2 when actively used or when apps on the device made regular checks. This means that even if the device is not in use, but close to your body, it may be exposing you. If you decide to take precautions against excessive EMF, make sure your Wi-Fi and mobile data are turned off when making phone calls.

If you decide to use a wired connection, this may be a benefit for your health in the long run. If there is no proven harm, you would have had some inconvenience by using cables, but at the end, you can do your job this way as well.

If you"re passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren"t sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.

As parents, we’ll do anything to keep our little ones safe—it’s our natural, loving instinct. We prepare for the arrival of our babies by carefully picking high quality products and planning ideal nurseries; yet we surrounded ourselves with handy modern day gadgets that emit EMFs, which are known to be harmful to both babies and adults.

Therefore, EMF exposure is not healthy. And yet, health problems from overexposure to EMF radiation have been controversial for several reasons.First, symptoms due to modern devices can be inconspicuous and may become noticeable over time rather than immediately.Second, the electronic and telecommunication industries have strong financial interests in consumers not being aware of potential harm from using their products.

Babies in-womb, newborns and children are especially susceptible to harm from EMF radiation because they have smaller and growing bodies, where symptoms can be more apparent.

In today’s world, it may seem impossible to live without modern-day technological conveniences. Thankfully, there are ways to find a tech-life balance, protect yourself and your baby from prolonged exposure to EMF radiation, and mitigate the negative health effects.

These overly tech-enabled monitors operate on the same electromagnetic frequencies as Wi-Fi routers or microwaves, constantly emitting strong bursts of radiation when powered on. Opt for low-emission, analogue baby monitors instead and leave all vitals monitoring to the professionals.

Babies love music, so ditch Alexa and other bluetooth enabled devices and use aux cable connected speakers that will not expose your little one to EMF radiation.

Skip placing Wi-Fi routers or Wi-Fi enabled CCTV cameras in every room of the house, especially the baby’s room, and use hardwired internet connections (LAN) instead.Keep appliances and devices off, or on airplane mode as much as possible. If Wi-Fi use is necessary, only turn it on when in use.CFL bulbs give off a lot of radiation, so opt for LEDs instead or go back to incandescent lights in your home.Know that new ‘smart’ appliances often have chips in them to send data wirelessly, so think about the extra radiation exposure that would lead to when you set up a smart home.As an expecting mama, give your smart watch a break and monitor yourself in other healthy ways, to avoid your in-womb developing baby from receiving excessive radiation.USING PHONES/LAPTOPS MINDFULLYDistance yourself and your baby from your phone or laptop as much as possible to reduce EMF exposure. Remember, the closer you are to any source, the stronger the radiation will be, so move away from the sources – even if it is only a few inches.It’s common for moms to be on their phones during breastfeeding. Ideally, it’s best to keep devices away and connect with your baby. However, if you must use your phone, make sure its atleast two feet away from you and your baby and calls or movies are on speakerphone or use an Airtube headset, which unlike bluetooth wireless headsets, does not expose you to radiation.Avoid ‘wearing’ your phone on your body or placing it inside your baby carrier or stroller pockets. The farther away it is from vital organs – like the heart, a pregnant belly or your baby’s developing brain, the less radiation you and your baby will be exposed to. Never work with your laptop on your belly if you’re pregnant.It’s important not to make calls when your battery is low – your phone automatically increases its signal to compensate, emitting more radiation. Similarly, avoid making calls from the car, the signal has to bounce off different towers constantly to stay connected, which increases your EMF exposure.

AT NIGHTYou and your baby are most vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation when sleeping, so give your body the rest it needs to repair and restore itself at night, by remembering to turn off and unplug all devices, Wi-Fi routers, cordless telephones, televisions etc.

During the day, set a time limit for on your tot’s portable screen devices. If they are using your phone to play games, make sure it’s set to airplane mode.ALTERNATIVE METHODSThere are alternative ways to reduce the negative effects of EMF exposure and re-balance the nervous system.Minimize your use of digital devices when possible. Even better, take regular digital detoxes.Use radiation protection tools such as the Enviroglobe and EMF shields for your laptop, baby monitor and phone.

If you have any suggestions that have worked for reducing EMF radiation, we would love to share it with other mamas. Write to us at community@masilo.in

X-rays and gamma rays are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). The evidence they can cause cancer comes from many different sources, including studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, people exposed during the Chernobyl nuclear accident, people treated with high doses of radiation for cancer and other conditions, and people exposed to high levels of radiation at work, such as uranium miners. Most studies on radiation and cancer risk have looked at people exposed to high doses of radiation in these settings.

It is harder to measure the much smaller increase in cancer risk that might come from much lower levels of radiation exposure. Most studies have not been able to detect an increased risk of cancer among people exposed to low levels of x-rays or gamma rays. For example, people living at high altitudes, who are exposed to more natural background radiation from cosmic rays than people living at sea level, do not have noticeably higher cancer rates.

Still, most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of gamma and x-radiation can increase cancer risk, although most likely by a very small amount. In general, the lower the exposure dose is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which this kind of radiation is thought to be totally safe.

Much of what we know about cancer risks from radiation is based on studies of the survivors of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These people had higher risks of some, but not all cancers. Studies have found an increased risk of the following cancers (from higher to lower risk):

Exposure to higher doses of radiation exposure was linked to higher risk of cancer, but even low amounts of radiation were linked to an increased risk of getting and dying from cancer. There was no clear cut-off for a safe level of radiation exposure.

These cancers took years to develop, but some cancers appeared sooner than others. Deaths from leukemia started to go up about 2 to 3 years after exposure, with the number of cases peaking after about 10 years and going down after that. Solid tumors took longer to develop. For example, excess deaths from lung cancer began to be seen about 20 years after exposure.

Workers in cleanup operations from 1986 to 1990 had an increased risk of leukemia (all types). These people had higher and more prolonged radiation exposures than the people living near the plant.

Studies suggest that some people who were children when above-ground nuclear testing was being done in the US may develop thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to radioactive iodine in milk.

Radiation therapy is now used mainly to treat cancer. But in the past, before the risks of radiation were clearer, it was also used to treat some benign (non-cancerous) diseases. Studies of people treated for these conditions have helped us learn about how radiation affects cancer risk.

The use of radiation to treat some benign head and neck conditions and a higher risk of cancers of the salivary gland, brain and spinal cord tumors, and thyroid cancer.

Studies have linked radiation therapy to treat cancer with an increased risk of leukemia, thyroid cancer, early-onset breast cancer, and some other cancers later in life. The increase in risk depends on a number of factors, including:

Other factors might also play a role in how likely it is that a person exposed to radiation will develop cancer. For example, some genetic conditions can make a person’s cells more vulnerable to radiation damage, which might in turn raise their risk more than in someone without these gene changes.

If cancer does develop after radiation therapy, it doesn"t happen right away. Most leukemias develop within about 5 to 9 years after exposure. In contrast, most other cancers are not seen for at least 10 years after radiation therapy, and some are diagnosed more than 15 years later.

When considering getting radiation therapy to treat cancer, the benefits generally outweigh the risks. Overall, radiation therapy alone does not appear to be a very strong cause of second cancers. This is probably because doctors focus the radiation on the cancer cells as much as possible, while limiting the exposure of nearby normal cells. Doctors do their best to ensure the treatment destroys the cancer while limiting the risk that a second cancer will develop later on.

Some studies have estimated the risk of radiation exposure from imaging tests based on the risks from similar amounts of radiation exposure in the studies of the atomic bomb survivors. Based on these studies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that exposure to 10 millisieverts (mSv) from an imaging test would be expected to increase the risk of death from cancer by about 1 chance in 2,000.

It can be hard to study cancer risks from imaging tests that use radiation. In order to find a small increase in risk (such as 1 in 2,000), a study would have to look at tens of thousands, or even hundredss of thousands of people. For each person, information about other exposures that could affect cancer risk would need to be collected, to help ensure any increase in cancer risk came from the radiation exposure and not something else. And because cancers caused by radiation take many years to develop, the study would need to follow people for decades.

Often, scientists use other types of studies that can be done more quickly and require fewer resources, but the conclusions from these types of studies often are not as strong.

For example, researchers might use questionnaire studies to look for possible causes of cancer. These studies compare exposures among people who have a certain cancer to those who don’t. Or they may compare people who had a certain exposure (like radiation) to those who didn’t. However, this is hard to do for radiation exposure from imaging tests, because people often can"t accurately recall information about things that happened many years before (such as in childhood), and information about all the imaging tests they"ve had is often not available. There is also a concern that people with cancer are more likely to report exposures that they think might have affected their cancer risk than people who do not have cancer, which can affect study results.

Studies that have found an increased risk of cancer after imaging tests that use radiation often involve people who have had many imaging tests or high-dose procedures. For example:

Some studies have suggested a link between higher doses of radiation from CT scans in children to increased risks of leukemia and brain tumors, although the overall risk was still low.

Based on studies done on people and studies done in the lab, several expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing nature of x-rays and gamma rays.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). One of its major goals is to identify causes of cancer. Based on the data available, IARC classifies x- and gamma radiation as a “known human carcinogen.”

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program of different US government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NTP has classified x- and gamma radiation as “known to be a human carcinogen.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits for exposure to x-rays and gamma rays in part because it recognizes that this form of radiation can cause cancer.

In hindsight, the years leading up to 2016 were downright sleepy in comparison with what would follow. Donald Trump’s meteoric, tweet-powered rise to the presidency. The Cambridge Analytica scandal. Congressional hearings on privacy and bias. TikTok at the center of souring U.S.–China relations. Each new day brought a fresh wave of controversy the shores of once infallible social media platforms.

Today, the honeymoon phase is long over and the messiness of running a global social platform is now on full display. Nowhere is this more evident than Twitter during the current Elon Musk transitional period—but more details on that later.

The scale of Meta’s platforms still dominate thanks to their global reach, but there are a number of smaller networks fighting for market share. Here’s a look at popular platforms, organized from largest to smallest active userbase:

YouTube is the only true competition for Meta’s scale and reach. Alphabet’s video content hub with social features boasts more than two billion monthly active users. YouTube’s embrace of the creator economy is nudging the platform further into pure social media territory with the introduction of “handles”.

Today, there are also a number of smaller, special interest platforms. OnlyFans, for example, is focused on adult content creators. Parler and Truth Social appeal to users who want fewer constraints on the content they post and consume. BeReal aims to create more authentic moments by prompting users to post a photo at a random time each day.

Having a figurehead CEO is a double-edged sword. When things are going well, the market rallies around the successful leader. Case in point, Mark Zuckerberg was named Time’s Person of the Year in 2010. Even as recently as 2016, Glassdoor named the Facebook founder the “most admired tech CEO”.

On the flip side, when the tide turns, it turns fast. After a series of controversies, Zuckerberg took a multi-billion-dollar gamble by renaming his entire company Meta and pivoting its focus to the burgeoning idea of a metaverse. Meta’s New Horizons platform is rumored to have plateaued at about 200,000 active users, which is underwhelming for a company that still reaches a sizable slice of humanity with its other services.

Of course, it’s too early to know whether Zuckerberg’s gamble will pay off. As always, all is forgiven once a business unit takes off and becomes profitable.

The company was launched in the shadow of Facebook’s massive growth, and was saddled with expectations that were tough to meet. Although Twitter has an engaged and influential audience, it hasn’t managed to monetize them at the level of Meta’s platforms (for better or worse). The introduction of Twitter Blue in 2021 did not resonate with users at the scale the company hoped, and “fleets” were essentially written off as a failed experiment.

If reports of an exodus of talent and advertising dollars are to be believed, then the future of one of world’s most influential social media platforms could be at risk.

Social media has always been dominated by Facebook and its related apps. When a new challenger came along, Facebook either acquired it (Instagram, WhatsApp), or “acquired” their features (Snapchat). TikTok is the first challenger to keep its momentum and growth, even as Instagram rolled out very similar features.

TikTok is also a rare case of a Chinese tech product crossing over into Western markets. The ascendancy of TikTok was not without controversy though. Suspicion over Chinese access to user data continues to be an issue both in the U.S., and in other large markets around the world. TikTok has been banned in India since 2020.

Despite these headwinds, TikTok remains wildly popular. The short-form video platform was the number one downloaded app on the planet, and it remains a favorite of the all-important Gen Z demographic.

In recent years, neighborhood-based social networks have sprung up and gained traction. NextDoor used physical letters sent to adjacent addresses to supercharge its growth, while Neighbors piggybacked off the popularity of Ring’s doorbell cameras. Although members post about more benign topics such as lost cats and where to find a good plumber, crime is an increasingly common theme as well.

Apps like Neighbors and Citizen have a more overt focus on crime and safety. While the growth of these apps reflects an obvious interest preventing crime, critics point out that the ubiquity of personal surveillance equipment and forums built purely around public safety promote a culture of suspicion in communities.

The multi-billion-dollar question—is dissatisfaction with major platforms temporary, or will emerging networks like Mastodon or BeReal hit critical mass and become new staples for people connecting online. Time will tell.