Hi all, apologies if this has been asked before somewhere on this forum but I could not find anything.
I have noticed on the paperwork for the Wyze components I’ve purchased (cameras, home system etc) come with FCC warning / FCC Radiation Exposure statements and ISED Warning / ISED Radiation Exposure Statements. Is this anything that I need to be concerned about in regards to these components adversely impacting my or my family members health when they are used?
The descriptions with these statements on the Wyze paperwork seem to provide instruction to operate these components at a minimum distance of 20cm between the radiator and your body… not exactly sure what to make of this. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.
Given the wide spectrum of Radio Freequency emitters the FCC regulates and the even wider variety of devices I am already radiated by every second of my life, I would think that my Wyze cams and HMS would be on the very low end of the risk scale.
And, since the regulatory requirement is to place a warning on every single item that may emit an RF signal rather than only the devices that exceed an acceptable safe level, the warnings are relatively meaningless since they don’t contain any comparative prolonged exposure data for reference. As @K6CCC inferred, I would think your mobile phone would be a greater concern given its higher rate of close proximity exposure and strength of emitter. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the exposure produced by all the wearable WiFi devices like watches, ear buds, headsets, body cams, NFC chips, etc. Those are all close proximity for prolonged periods.
And, If I were to ask anyone here on the forum about RF exposure risks, it would be @K6CCC. As a licensed Amateur Radio operator, he operates much stronger RF transmitters directly regulated by the FCC on a regular basis.
Probably not a great idea to strap them to your body and run them for extreme lengths of time… Like most do with their mobile phones.
I’m sure you have already done your research, but there is a lifetime of regulatory and research reading out there on the topic. Here is one published by the FCC:
Just a product of my exasperation with the whole question and common responses. While what @K6CCC says is likely true, I receive it as dismissive of the anxiety many (some?) feel about swimming in a sea of RF radiation that grows denser daily. That’s my problem, not his. He said what he said, not what it set off in me.
@SlabSlayer 's response is good. In my experience he addresses the array of possibilities a question or concern may suggest. (He is not actually a fish, though he does spend a lot of time above, beside and around them. )
I guess he might improve it by finding and linking the best counter argument site to the FCC’s authority-laden one. But that’s not his job. None of this is, really. He’s a volunteer, and a skilled one.
Great idea Peep, and thanks for the plug. Unfortunately, finding credible sources for opposing opinions is the more difficult task. Several have been retracted due to the peer review process finding inconsistencies and errors in assessment and reporting. Others don’t specifically focus on the particular freequency range of the three WiFi bands or the RF range of the Hub but concentrate more on the 4G and 5G range of Cellular signals since those transmitters are more densely deployed with stronger signal strength.
A cursory search will result in thousands of sites and articles on the subject, most with very deep and branching rabbit holes of links to technical citations. That being said, here are some highlights if you have a couple days of spare time:
For our Canadian neighbors, the Canadian Government has also weighed in on the safe operation of WiFi devices in our homes and has said, in no uncertain terms, there is no danger.
Determining the truth about actors and agents of harm in our lives is impractical if not impossible.
In California, we are officially informed that virtually every product we interact with or ingest may cause cancer. With the best of intentions, I’m sure. Just to be safe.
With transparency like this who needs obfuscation.
)
