This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article)
It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6 directions (up, down, all four horizontal directions) such that each antenna is broadcasting with one polarization is opposed (at 180°) by another broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, as well as by four other antennae, broadcasting with 90° different polarization in each of the four possible directions. This produces a field that is more like a non-polarized EMF rather than the usual polarized artificial EMF"
is this a fair test of modulated polarized Wi-Fi?
"Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of Ardoino et al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is produced from reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, where the curvature of the cylinder will also produce a largely non-polarized EMF and different reverberation paths and consequent destructive interference, may both be expected to occur. Consequently the predicted low biological activity of EMFs produced by the Wu et al. (2009) system may be expected to also occur from this TEM exposure system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study biological effects of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important exposures using such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they produce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive interference."
There is no new data here, only a combination of old data.
But seriously I’m waiting for someone more knowledgable to take this paper to task. There have been numerous WiFi and cell phone studies that have found no evidence of harm.
Much of the research (and the FCC's regulatory regime) has traditionally used a model based on cell PHONE usage ie testing for effects of relatively short periods of exposure, with the phone beside the head, where the skull acts as a shield[1]. But these assumptions aren't applicable to smartphone usage today, where 90% of people under 35 have been sleeping with their phones for years[2], and most usage involves the screen in front of the face, where there are large areas of only soft tissue (eyes & nasal cavity) between the device and your brain.
Furthermore, most testing largely centers around Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is basically concerned with the question of power (ie heat) transmitted to the body (basically "are the microwaves cooking your?"). "Cooking" is a fairly well-understood process, and tissue's ability to dissipate heat can be fairly easily modeled to ensure exposure stays within a safe range. But several of the concerns this meta-analysis points to have a dose-response curve is not so simple or clearly understood, meaning the effects could well occur, even within the usage patterns deemed "safe" on a SAR basis (their language is actually stronger, claiming these "should be considered [...] established effects of Wi-Fi")
All that being said, I don't see this as a definitive answer that our current exposure levels of RF radiation are necessarily harmful, but I have definitely wondered whether our (grand)children's generation will look back at images of us staring at our screens the way we look at images of our parents' generation frolicking in clouds of DDT[3] (I've also wondered this a more often about spray-on sunscreen ads[4], but that's a whole other rant)
----
[1]: Most industry recommendations make the laughable assumption that the phone is not even in contact with the body. Manufacturers basically threw a shit-fit when Berkeley started trying to inform people that most "normal", against-the-body usage was likely outside of what FCC exposure guidelines test for: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-cellph...
[2]: https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-18-29-year-olds-sleep-...
For purely scientific pursuits the “other camp” on any given issue often has a voice. Unfortunately in this situation, the other camp is largely made up of industry folks. They are happy to fund your research that finds no link as many times as you want. The cost to you as a researcher is being labeled an industry shill. The problem here is sometimes people are industry shills. So separating the good from the bad is nontrivial. This problem is pervasive in scientific research and solutions are non-obvious. Never forget that humans are biased creatures and scientists are not magical. They carry all the same baggage the rest of us do. Many are self aware enough to know it. But doing something about it is quite hard.
