I saw the BBC ‘Panorama’ programme that talked about potential health risks of wireless hotspots in our cities. I’m concerned for my staff in the workplace, and especially for my children at home and school. Can wi-fi fry your brain?

This is headline-grabbing television, but much of what is says is purely hypothetical and not based on any scientific findings. What was it that gave you cause for concern?

The programme-makers visited a school in Norwich, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast to the level in a classroom with wi-fi.
In the classroom with wi-fi, radiation levels were, they said, ‘three times higher’! So how about in the office?

This is deceptively unscientific data. Subsequent reports from leading scientists and the World Health Organisation have refuted this as inaccurate. You could say it’s media scare-mongering.

Can you clarify that in more detail?

Why did the Panorama programme find that radiation levels were ‘three times higher’ in a wi-fi enabled classroom than those emanating from a mobile phone mast? What the programme didn’t make clear was that it made radiation measurements just one metre from the laptop, but 100 metres from the phone mast.

I see. So the results aren’t a proper comparison?

That’s correct, and in any case, and more importantly, the radiation levels found in the room were 600 times lower than government-recommended safety standards.

That puts it in another light. So why all the fuss?

Apart from trying to get headlines, there is no long-term study for exposure to wi-fi radiofrequency (RF) signals, in light of recent increases in wi-fi hotspots and devices. But the World Health Organisation (WHO) has found no dangers to date from wi-fi.

That’s correct, and in any case, and more importantly, the radiation levels found in the room were 600 times lower than government-recommended safety standards.