Bad influence of electrosmog on sleep?

Since I've been working on the subject of electrosmog every now and then for about 3 years and can find no real answer to my questions in some situations on the Internet, I turn to you with the hope to be able to help me.

I'm aware with clarity that to the question of whether wireless radiation or mobile phone radiation is dangerous for humans, the science is not clear results and long-term studies are missing, but based on previous knowledge no danger v.a from W-LAN radiation emanates.

There are many pessimistic views to be found on the web regarding mobile phone radiation. Allegedly, there's a certain likelihood of brain tumors or other negative health effects such as sleep disorders and cardiac arrhythmias. Since mobile and W-LAN radiation work on different frequencies, there's a certain difference in terms of risks.

My question is about my 3 year old sister. To describe the plan of my apartment would take too long but what is important: My sister sleeps on a 32 cm thick wall, which is between her room and the kitchen. Just behind the wall in the kitchen is a laptop. The distance from the laptop to the head of my sister is so with a wall in between about 1 meter. Now, when my sister sleeps during the day, my mother sometimes surfs the internet on this PC, sometimes he is in stand-by mode, then I turn off the W-LAN on the PC. Until 2 years ago, there was also a router in the kitchen near the laptop at a distance of about 1.5 meters from my sister (of course with the same wall in between).

The question is hopefully obvious: Should I worry that the laptop (or even the router) badly influenced my sister's sleep? (She does not suffer from sleep disorders and has never really suffered)

I'm really grateful for helpful answers!

W-LAN works with electromagnetic radiation in the gigahertz range, similar to microwave ovens. As everyone knows, radiation heats organic matter. Any further effect is not known to me.

Now you have to put that in the right relation. A microwave oven works with a few hundred watts, which are emitted into a small enclosed space. The walls reflect very well, so that as far as possible the entire radiant energy passes into the food. Wi-Fi in the 2.4 GHz range is limited by law to a transmission power of 0.1 W, which is also relatively undirected in the entire room.

Infrared radiation is also perceived as warmth by us humans, but somewhat more superficially than radiation in the gigahertz range. The power of 0.1 W corresponds approximately to the power delivered by an infrared remote control. But I do not know that there's anyone who could decide on the basis of the heat development on his skin, whether he is currently watching an infrared remote control or not.

Of course, no serious scientist will tell you that Wi-Fi is proven to be harmless. But that does not mean that they are unaware. For one thing, there's no reason to suppose, according to previous scientific findings, that anything harmful could be harmful to W-LAN radiation, and second, there's no one who could plausibly present a problem so far.

Of course, there are people who "respond" to Wi-Fi. But that has to do with a self-deception and a nocebo effect. So there are no physical, but psychological effects, which can also have serious, physical effects. Knowledge is the best way to overcome such fears. I recently built a radio receiver and was surprised how difficult it is, despite various filter and amplifier stages, to read out its own signal from the noise of innumerable artificial and natural signals.

So first of all thanks for your answer, so far I'm on this level of knowledge. I have even read that the WLAN radiation in the 2.4 GHz range is reflected by the skin for the most part.

I would like to know more exactly what exactly you mean by the radio receiver.

Certainly, a part of the W-LAN radiation is reflected on your skin, but in principle long-wave radiation can penetrate objects better than short-wave, which is why it still quite well through walls, while the infrared remote control fails there.

By radio receiver, I mean a receiver for the DCF77 time signal, which use radio clocks for time alignment. I tried to evaluate this with an arduino without given libraries. In addition, I once transmitted digital signals over a radio link in the megahertz range.

Certainly there's a danger of hyperfocusing, as with all mental issues. Nevertheless, clear physical symptoms of potentially autosuggestive are to be distinguished. In patients undergoing WLAN exposure, e.g. An increase in heart rate, blood pressure, onset of tinnitus sounds, and the like. Determine. These are physiological functions that are not subject to arbitrary control in a normal body, so the reactions are "automatic."

It should be noted, however, that situations in an apartment are hardly ever comparable to laboratory settings. Most are not only signals of a single WLAN, but that of dozens. Nonetheless, it is often easy to observe how patients suddenly experience symptoms of a change of space and (less rapidly) abate symptoms, with complete patient ignorance of exposure-related readings.

Unfortunately, stress situations are often very difficult to reproduce, let alone adequately quantified in environmental terms. This makes the diagnosis and treatment sometimes so cumbersome.

Of course you are right about stress and anxiety. In fact, some of the symptoms can also manifest through stress and anxiety. However, the differences in terms of exposure characteristics are enormous.

The often quoted comparison with pollen allergy is really quite good. Pollen allergy sufferers wash their hair in the evening, or after just a few minutes in the open air their arms, where pollen settle. If they do not, they notice the typical symptoms after a single grasp on the eyes… Without imagination, stress, fear or similar. A simple and well-documented allergy.

The point with WLAN and the like It is that the connections become understandable only on the basis of the depth / quality of a thematic background of a vocational / university education, both in the technical as well as in the medical / biological context. Unfortunately, this is rare. It is noteworthy that especially telecommunications engineers, electrical engineers and the like. Have a better understanding of matter than their medical counterparts. Also, e.g. Unfortunately, computer scientists often tend to ignore the physical and chemical influences on biological tissue within this topic. Understandable, since they usually have too little knowledge here.

You will not find anyone who can give you In such a forum the connections in a few words can show / prove. Just as little as someone can explain the connections of contact allergies at the level of the immune system in a few words. But by studying Wikipedia alone the basics of neurophysiology and anatomy, as well as the functioning of wireless devices or similar. Should you discover the connections yourself after some time.

You'll probably be able to get into a tram without any problem, without causing you a deadly infection. Consequently, you would recommend all people to go in principle without risk in a tram, because this environment is safe for health. But if you send an immunodeficient patient to the same streetcar, he can get seriously ill immediately afterwards. Logically, his immune system is on the ground. Even if you probably do not know the relationships on a biological basis, you will be able to understand this.

But not everything that you can't understand or understand can't be! Often, medicine works phenomenologically. Patient is exposed WLAN → Patient gets burning headache. Avoid Wi-Fi → Problem solved. Problems are rarely solved by ignoring them.

Can't find a real answer to my questions on some issues on the internet

Hm. If you had been looking for half-knowledge and conspiracy theories, that would probably have been more successful…

For the hard facts, please keep looking at http://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/emf/emf_node.html.

Otherwise: The biggest damage that can be done right now is too much fear and the negative impact on well-being (with possible, right disease symptoms!) … For example, in mobile masts, the biggest increase in health problem occurs when the masts are set up - not if they are turned on weeks later! Consequently, it is correct to inform oneself, but with a sense of proportion and without letting oneself get carried away (see Facts).

The often quoted comparison with pollen allergy is really quite good. Pollen allergy sufferers wash their hair in the evening, or after just a few minutes in the open air their arms, where pollen settle. If they do not, they notice the typical symptoms after a single grasp on the eyes… Without imagination, stress, fear or similar. A simple and well-documented allergy.

I can't understand what you want out with this comparison. An allergy is a pathological immune reaction to actually harmless substances. Are you implying that W-LAN would trigger an allergic reaction in some people? What is the allergen?

The point with WLAN and the like It is that the connections become understandable only on the basis of the depth / quality of a thematic background of a vocational / university education, both in the technical as well as in the medical / biological context. Unfortunately, this is rare. It is noteworthy that especially telecommunications engineers, electrical engineers and the like. Have a better understanding of matter than their medical counterparts. Also, e.g. Unfortunately, computer scientists often tend to ignore the physical and chemical influences on biological tissue within this topic. Understandable, since they usually have too little knowledge here.

If 99% of the scientists in these fields say that according to the current state of knowledge, there's no danger of W-LAN radiation, then in your opinion these are people who have only correctly understood the connections.

You will not find anyone who can give you In such a forum the connections in a few words can show / prove. […] But by studying Wikipedia alone already the basics of neurophysiology and anatomy, as well as the functioning of wireless devices or similar. Should you discover the connections yourself after some time.

So on the one hand, the topic is very complex, but on the other hand it is enough, if I read through some Wikipedia articles. As far as how W-LAN devices work, I'd like to say that I have a lot of basic knowledge. In terms of neurophysiology and anatomy, on the other hand, I'm out. But I rely on what is currently scientific consensus. Your allegations and horror scenarios (I'm referring specifically to your own answer to DoctorAsk100's question, in which you first list which health issues could all occur) are against the scientific consensus. So submit your views to the appropriate scientists. Of course, it's stupid to think that 99% of those are idiots. Then rather post in a lay forum and unsettle other people. Again: I do not pretend to be so well versed in all the areas of interest, to lead scientific debates here, but I'm also not the one who claims that the earth is a disc.

Often, medicine works phenomenologically. Patient is exposed WLAN → Patient gets burning headache. Avoid Wi-Fi → Problem solved.

That sounds more like a naturopath for me. Patient is sick → Globuli in, patient feels better → Globuli have caused the improvement. I want to hope that you also want to establish causal relationships in medical research.

Problems are rarely solved by ignoring them.

Here we're absolutely in agreement.