Health Effects of Wireless Baby Monitors

jcstockdale

Am I the only person who is reluctant to place a wireless baby monitor next to my baby's cot? Essentially, this is microwave transmitter that's going to beaming out it's signal the whole time he's in bed. Does anybody know of any studies into the longterm health effects to infants of chronic exposure to low powered microwave radiation?

It seems that there isn't even any debate about this, even though they're not (as far as I can see) proven to be safe. The manufacturers don't seem to offer any alternative to the wireless and DECT devices (I'm discounting the Tomy Baby Link as it is useless beyond belief).

I fear that we will learn about the consequences of using these devices only twenty or thirty years down the line when the health effects are starting to become apparent. Didn't they used to think that cigarettes and asbestos were safe? I for one do not want my baby to be a guinea-pig in this experiment.

I'm not actually trying to start the debate (although that would be no bad thing). What I really want to know is what are the alternatives to these ubiquitous devices? I'm not averse to a bit of DIY - I have a soldering iron and I'll use it if necessary!

All suggestions appreciated.

Thanks.

jpfahy

There are plenty of wired cameras with microphones that connect to your TV. LIDL do them from time to time

Das Kitty

Hi OP.

DECT is a radio wave like any other but at a different frequency. It's not the frequency that matters when it comes to effects but the power of the device. All devices that have the same Wattage will have pretty much the same effects regardless of frequency.

In fact if you set out to avoid DECT in particular and use other devices that have greater power outputs it could be worse (although realistically all consumer devices bar microwave ovens transmit very small amounts of energy).


I know this is a blog link but it's quite thorough.
http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/12/dect-scares.html

cbyrd

if you want to test it out put it next to a plant for a few days.... if you do this with a mobile phone on charge it'll turn some of the leaves brown on the side closest to the phone after about a week.. noticed this by accident but it'll give you a good indication of the power that's coming out of them. although i wouldn't imagine that the monitor would be close enough to the baby to cause any harm.. wouldn't it be more along the lines of radio or tv type power?? not microwave oven or mobile phone strength??
although if it does concern you so much would the standard plug in the wall version be out of the question or maybe to put it into the hallway just outside the door..they're pretty sensitive things and can pick up small noise..i lived in an apartment block when our first was born and with a plug in i could pick up a neighbours frequency very clearly on the other bandwave on the monitor... i could hear everything in their apartment... it was flipping hilarious... although not when her child cried

jcstockdale

Thanks Das Kitty.
While I'm no expert on the physics/biology of this, I've read and studied enough to believe that there are grounds for concern. I'm not saying that it is harmful, but I intend to exercise the precautionary principle in this case. It's not specifically DECT that I'm shunning - it's all wireless devices.

Das Kitty

All electrical devices emit electromagnetic waves into the atmosphere, not just wireless ones.

jcstockdale

Thanks, Cbyrd.
Most of the plants in my house have brown leaves anyway so I'm not sure that would be the best test ;-)
I'd be happy to try the plugin ones. Which kind did you have? The only one I can find is the Tomy Baby Link and the noise it makes is like being caught in a hurricane. By the time the baby's noise is loud enough to be heard over the crackle, I'd be able to hear him without the monitor! I know the obvious solution is to go digital... but all the digital ones are wireless!

pljudge321

The energy in an electromagnetic wave is directly proportional to the frequency. A baby monitor will use a low frequency, low amplitude transmitter and receiver thus extremely low energy.

This sort of myth seems to be inspired by the same sort of misinformation that causes people to fear living close to phone towers due to the increased electromagnetic radiation. However living far away from a phone transmitter might be even worse in this regard. The power density of an electromagnetic wave follows an inverse square law i.e each time you double the distance from the source you quarter the previous power density.

For example say the power density standing 1m away from a radio tower is 1. Then standing 100m away the tower the energy density will be one ten-thousandth of this value.

For people living far away from a mobile mast the mobile phone must deliver more power to compensate, and having an inverse square law doesn't help much when the phone is being held directly beside your head.

Of course I'm skeptical that electromagnetic radiation has tangible/negative any effect on human health. We've had mobile phones in one form or another for 20 years now and there hasn't been a mass wave of brain tumours or anything.

In short OP rest easy.

jcstockdale

Thanks, pljudge321.
I know all the inverse square stuff. I'm not a technophobe (although perhaps becoming one) and to be honest, I think there's a very good chance that the yea sayers will be proven right on this one... eventually. But when what's at stake is something so precious, I need to be 100% certain, or at least somewhere well over 99%.

Sure we've had mobile phones in some form for the last 20 years or more, but the practice of putting these transmitters deliberately in close proximity to a sleeping baby is relatively new. The original mobile phone user back in the 80s would hardly let his wife near the new toy - never mind the baby. One projectile vomit in the wrong direction and you'd be re-mortgaging the house for a replacement!

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that radiation could conceivably cause damage. And it could be that it takes years or even decades to manifest itself. I know it's not the same but, for example, chronic occupational exposure to asbestos can take 40 years before the onset of symptoms. It seems to be fairly well established that infants are more susceptible to the effects of EM radiation than adults. I don't want to be explaining to my son in 30 or so years' time that the reason he has leukemia or whatever is because I opted for convenience over precaution when he was tiny.

I know this can be an emotive issue and people are keen to embrace the new technologies. Believe me, I'd love to get rid of all the cables trailing around my home. But I just don't feel comfortable with taking that risk - especially when I feel there must be viable (if slightly less convenient) alternatives.

pljudge321

jcstockdale wrote: »

Thanks, pljudge321.
I know all the inverse square stuff. I'm not a technophobe (although perhaps becoming one) and to be honest, I think there's a very good chance that the yea sayers will be proven right on this one... eventually. But when what's at stake is something so precious, I need to be 100% certain, or at least somewhere well over 99%.

Sure we've had mobile phones in some form for the last 20 years or more, but the practice of putting these transmitters deliberately in close proximity to a sleeping baby is relatively new. The original mobile phone user back in the 80s would hardly let his wife near the new toy - never mind the baby. One projectile vomit in the wrong direction and you'd be re-mortgaging the house for a replacement!

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that radiation could conceivably cause damage. And it could be that it takes years or even decades to manifest itself. I know it's not the same but, for example, chronic occupational exposure to asbestos can take 40 years before the onset of symptoms. It seems to be fairly well established that infants are more susceptible to the effects of EM radiation than adults. I don't want to be explaining to my son in 30 or so years' time that the reason he has leukemia or whatever is because I opted for convenience over precaution when he was tiny.

I know this can be an emotive issue and people are keen to embrace the new technologies. Believe me, I'd love to get rid of all the cables trailing around my home. But I just don't feel comfortable with taking that risk - especially when I feel there must be viable (if slightly less convenient) alternatives.

Yes but a baby monitor is essentially a low power walkie talkie. It emits low energy, non-ionising electromagnetic radiation which has an extremely limited thermal effect on anything it passes through.

If you are really worried about the effects of electromagnetic waves then you better chuck out the wi-fi, the microwave oven and all your phones. All these things operate at much higher frequencies and much higher amplitudes then the baby monitor will. I'd hazard a guess at saying the radiation due to the baby monitor is no more then the normal background radiation in your house anyway.

I know there is a lot of FUD being spread around nowadays about this sort of stuff but you have to realise that humans have evolved to deal with this sort of EM radiation, we get bombarded from space by it constantly, its essentially why we grow old, because our cells continually kill themselves off to deal with this stuff.

Edit: Is it possibly the use of the word radiation that is causing concern, EM radiation s a whole different ballpark to what most people would consider as radiation.

jcstockdale

I don't have wi-fi and I tend to keep the microwave oven away from the cot ;-) I do take your point that we have a lot of stuff that's generating EMF and there is a level of background radiation that I can never control. Still I don't see the point of introducing something that alarms me when there are alternatives (aren't there??).

I'm not sure about your evolution assertion though. Sure we've evolved with a certain amount of background radiation but I'm not sure that evolution can keep pace with the exponential growth and proliferation of wireless technology.

pljudge321

Regardless if you live in a urban area your neighbours will have wi-fi, and trust me then power density emitted from a microwave, even if its the other side of the house to your baby will far exceed that generated by the baby monitor.

Also remember that the baby monitor is not constantly transmitting, only when it receives an input i.e junior crying will it transmit.

I'm assuming by EMF you mean electromagnetic field, in which case this is definitely not increasing exponentially. The EM radiation should be approaching saturation point, theres only so much info we can have flying around the place. Again this should only be nominally above the background EM radiation we have naturally.

I'm sure its possible to find a wired baby monitor system somewhere though if your really adamant about this.

Nevyn

Why use a baby monitor at all?
Why not just keep the infant on what ever floor of the house you are, keep the doors open listen out and check on them ocassionally?

Davidth88

Hi,

When we were using a baby monitor , I noticed/percieved some drop in my WIFI performance .

So I borrowed a analyser , I noticed it was broadcasting on the same spectrum as my wifi.

Seriously OP , you don't place the monitor next to your child head , it's in the same room . We actually placed it the other side of the room.

Actually the strength of signal coming from the monitor was roughly the same as my WIFI ( or my neighbours come to that )

Thaedydal, I sort of agree with you , but to be honest it was for our own peace of mind .


pljudge321 , actually what we found is they do constantly transmit , there is enough background noise possibly ?