From smartphone addiction to cybercrime, it’s no secret that spending too much time on the internet can be risky.
But are Wi-Fi signals themselves causing us harm?
In his latest bizarre video, disgraced comedian, Russell Brand flogs a £180 ‘magical amulet’ which he insists protects its wearers from the ‘evil energies’ of Wi-Fi signals.
‘As you know, airports are places full of Wi-Fi and all sorts of evil energies. Think of all the phones out there, all of the signals, corruptible and corrupting. Luckily I wear this magical amulet from Airestech that keeps me safe from all of the various signals out there,’ Brand says in the video.
So, is there really any truth behind these outlandish claims?
In his latest bizarre video, disgraced comedian Russell Brand claims that WiFi could be ‘lethal’ in order to sell a £180 ‘magical amulet’
What are Wi-Fi signals?
Wi-Fi stands for Wireless Fidelity and is a communications networking technology which allows computers and phones to communicate remotely.
What Mr Brand is more likely to be referring to in his latest video are the radio signals which Wi-Fi-enabled devices use to communicate.
These are waves of energy between 2 gigahertz and 5 gigahertz on the electromagnetic spectrum – around the same area as the waves used in microwaves.
Like all forms of electromagnetic energy, that means that the signals created by Wi-Fi networks are a form of radiation.
Wi-Fi stands for Wireless Fidelity and is a communications networking technology which allows computers and phones to communicate remotely
If Wi-Fi is a type of radiation, can it cause cancer?
Although it sounds like radiation similar to microwaves would be dangerous, the current scientific consensus is that Wi-Fi is not a risk to human health.
The critical reason for this is that Wi-Fi is a type of radiation called ‘non-ionising radiation’.
This is a name used to refer to types of radiation which don’t carry enough energy to damage our cells or our DNA.
One of the biggest concerns that people might have over Wi-Fi radiation is that it could lead to increased cancer rates.
When our bodies are hit by strong radiation this breaks apart the links in our DNA which leads to the cell mutations which create cancer.
Luckily for us, since Wi-Fi is non-ionising, it doesn’t break or damage our DNA and so there is no physical mechanism by which it could increase our cancer risk.
Russell Brand claims that the Lifetune Flex (pictured) can protect you from WiFI signals. However, there is no evidence to suggest that WiFi is harmful in the first place
What’s the evidence?
Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to Wi-Fi, phone signals, or other forms of non-ionising radiation is related to increased cancer risk.
Maria Feychting, a professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, previously told MailOnline: ‘Currently there is no strong evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields during mobile phone use is associated with adverse health effects.’
In 2012, an extensive report published by the British Health Protection Agency found that there was no evidence that radio-frequency signals were carcinogenic.
Likewise, further studies conducted in 2016 by the Institution of Engineering and Technology concluded that there was no indication of adverse health effects.
This year, the WHO reviewed more than 5,000 studies, including 63 observational studies in humans, and found that there was no link between phone use and cancer.
Lead author Professor Ken Karipidis, of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, said at the time: ‘We concluded the evidence does not show a link between mobile phones and brain cancer or other head and neck cancers.’
The WHO’s comprehensive review of 5,000 research papers concluded that there was no evidence to suggest exposure to radio frequencies from mobile phones or computers was linked to cancer (stock image)
Some studies have claimed to find an increased risk of cancers related to exposure to non-ionising radiation – particularly from holding a phone to the head.
For example, the Bio-Initiative group concluded in 2007 that radio-frequency radiation was linked to increased cancer rates even at very low levels.
A separate study in 2020 from UC Berkeley also claimed that using a mobile phone for as little as 17 minutes per day over 10 years increases the risk of developing cancerous tumours by up to 60 per cent.
However, these findings have been highly controversial and many researchers have pointed out serious flaws.
For example, scientists found that the Bio-Initiave group’s research included ‘a number of chapters written by individual authors, apparently without consultation or discussion between them.’
Cancer Research UK also rejected the results of the UC Berkley study, saying: ‘Using mobile phones does not increase the risk of cancer.’
Even though smartphones emit radiation, rates of brain tumours have not increased at the same rate as smartphone ownership. This is compelling evidence that the radio frequencies associated with smartphones do not cause cancers. This chart shows the smartphones which emit the highest levels of radiation
Do we have evidence Wi-Fi is safe?
On the other hand, we do have good reason to believe that Wi-Fi does not cause cancer.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) points out that mobile ownership in the UK rose by 500 per cent between 1990 and 2016.
If radio frequencies produced by wireless devices caused cancers, we should expect a similarly large increase in brain and other cancers.
However, between 1990 and 2016, rates of brain tumors have remained remarkably flat.
While there has been some increase in brain tumour diagnosis, this also coincides with significant improvements in diagnostic capabilities.
As many researchers have pointed out, this is a good indication that Wi-Fi has little, if any, impact on cancer rates.
Russell Brand has recently converted to Christianity and has tried to sell himself as a religious influencer. Bran (right) was pictured last month performing a baptism in his underpants
Could Wi-Fi be harmful in other ways?
Some claim that even if Wi-Fi has no means of causing cancer, it could be harmful in other ways.
For example, exposure to radio-frequency fields has been found to affect living organisms by heating or vibrating molecules or causing oxidative stress.
Very high frequencies can cause tissue heating and even burns while powerful low-frequencies can cause nerve stimulation.
Potentially, this could mean that Wi-Fi signals might lead to some non-cancer harm.
In 2014, researchers at the University of Exeter suggested a possible link between mobile phone exposure and poorer sperm quality.
However, the researchers admitted that more research was needed because the evidence was sketchy.
Yet, due to the potential risks, government bodies have put legal thresholds in place to limit people’s exposure to high levels of non-ionising radiation.
The 49-year-old is now the face of the Airestech product, which claims to shield the user from ‘electromagnetic fields’. However, WiFi-enabled devices produce levels of radiation well below safe thresholds so there is no reason for concern
The Government of Canada, for example, sets limits which are 50 times lower than the threshold for potential adverse effects.
That means even standing next to a radio antenna will expose you to significantly lower amounts of radiation than has been found to cause harm.
It is also sometimes argued that we do not have enough evidence to say whether radio frequencies like Wi-Fi cause damage.
However, this is simply not the case as the WHO estimates that 25,000 pieces of research have now been published on the topic of non-ionising radiation.
That means we have a better idea of the harms of Wi-Fi than we do about most chemicals we are routinely exposed to.
Overall, this gives us a good indication that Wi-Fi is not harmful to humans and there is no need to buy a £180 necklace to protect yourself.
