The National Research Council (NRC) spent more than three years reviewing more than 500 scientific studies that had been conducted over a 20-year period and found "no conclusive and consistent evidence" that electromagnetic fields harm humans. The chairman of the NRC panel, neurobiologist Dr. Charles F. Stevens, said that "Research has not shown in any convincing way that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in a way that is harmful to human health."
Recently, the alarm has been raised by some who fear that damage might be done to our brains from being exposed to Wi-Fi. Despite the fact that modulated frequencies bringing radio and television transmissions into our homes are stronger and more pervasive than the radio waves used by wireless networks, there has been little call to reduce radio or TV transmission.
• The power levels for microwave Wi-Fi are lower than that for microwave cell phones.
• Visible light carries more energy than microwaves and bombards us much more frequently than microwaves from such things as cell phones or wireless networks.
• Microwave ovens are tuned for optimal water absorption, which happens to be about 2.45 gigahertz, and despite numerous scare stories about the effects of microwaved water and food on people, animals, and plants, you can't do anything to food or water with a microwave oven that you couldn't also do in a conventional oven with infrared waves, assuming you use the ovens as intended. Microwaved food is safe and poses no health hazard.)
There have been 31 studies looking at whether people who report being hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields can detect their presence, or whether their symptoms are worsened by them. A typical experiment would involve a mobile phone hidden in a bag, for example, with each subject reporting their symptoms, not knowing if the phone was on or off. Thirty-one is a good number of studies, however...
• 24 found that electromagnetic fields have no effect on the subjects.
• Seven did imply a measurable effect:
o In two of those studies with positive findings, even the original authors have been unable to replicate the results.
o For the next three, the results were found to be only statistical artifacts
o The final two results contradicted each other; one showed positive mood change, the other showed negative.
At this time, it looks as if hypersensitivity to EMFs is a psychosomatic disorder. For example, a research team in Norway (2007) conducted tests using sixty-five pairs of sham and mobile phone radio frequency (RF) exposures. The increase in pain or discomfort in RF sessions was 10.1 and in sham sessions 12.6 (P = 0.30). Changes in heart rate or blood pressure were not related to the type of exposure (P: 0.30–0.88). The study gave no evidence that RF fields from mobile phones may cause head pain or discomfort or influence physiological variables. The most likely reason for the symptoms is a "Nocebo Effect".