US-United States
AU-Australia
CA-Canada
CH-China
EEN-Eastern Europe and Nordics
FR-France
DE-Germany
IT-Italy
JP-Japan
KR-Korea
LATAM-Latin America
META-Middle East
NL-Netherlands
ES-Spain
UK-United Kingdom
Wi-Fi, Missing Hair, and Nervous Pets: Debunking the Myths
Published: March 21, 2025
A few years ago, one of my favorite TV shows, Better Call Saul, wrapped up its final season. Among its many memorable characters was Chuck McGill, played brilliantly by Michael McKean. Chuck, a highly successful attorney, believed he suffered from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)—a condition that, according to him, made it impossible to be around electricity, cell phones, or Wi-Fi. The catch? The medical community doesn’t recognize EHS as a legitimate illness. Without spoiling too much for those who haven’t watched the show (seriously, go watch it), Chuck’s supposed affliction turns out to be more psychological than physical.
So, why am I bringing up a fictional character from a show that ended years ago? Because Chuck McGill’s paranoia about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) reminds me of the never-ending myths and misinformation floating around about the so-called “adverse health effects” of Wi-Fi. If you dive into certain corners of the Internet, you’ll find self-proclaimed “experts” warning that Wi-Fi exposure causes everything from cancer to headaches to—yes—male pattern baldness.
Yes, I’ve lost a fair amount of hair over the years, but let’s not blame Wi-Fi for my genetic destiny. Despite what the image below might imply, the root cause was not RF frequencies, the real culprit was my family tree. If anything, Wi-Fi has only made my life easier, not thinner on top.
Is the Wi-Fi to blame?
For many years, I have been asked to address these concerns about the adverse health effects of the exposure of humans to Wi-Fi radio waves. The good news is that the World Health Organization (WHO) and government agencies set standards that establish exposure limits to radio waves, with which radio frequency (RF) products must comply. Tests performed on wireless devices have shown that they operate substantially below the required safety limits set by these organizations. Most of the research on this topic is usually about the possible effects of RF generated by cell phones because people hold these devices to their heads. Although the rules vary, a cell phone's maximum transit power is typically double the maximum transmit power of an average indoor Wi-Fi access point.
In the United States, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines have established a minimum level of safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy in wireless communications devices. Since 1996, the FCC has required that all wireless communications devices sold in the USA meet their minimum guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy. For example, the FCC specifies exposure limits for wireless devices intended for use near or against the body in terms of a specific absorption rate (SAR), a measure of the rate at which RF energy is absorbed by the body. The FCC allows an SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg)-averaged over one gram of tissue-for exposure to wireless devices. More information can be found on the FCC website, where they address the health concerns of wireless devices:
“Some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use may be linked to cancer and other illnesses, posing potentially greater risks for children than adults. While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.”
Additionally, the Wi-Fi Alliance states this about the same topic:
“A range of scientific research undertaken to-date concludes there is no evidence that low-power wireless networks pose health threats to users or to the general public.”
So, what is the amount of power that passes through your body? Well, it really is all about physics. Any RF signal will attenuate as it passes through walls and other objects. Additionally, RF attenuates as a function of distance based on what is known as free space path loss (FSPL). As a matter of fact, a 2.4 GHz RF signal attenuates about 40 dB in the first meter it travels. An RF signal in the 5 GHz frequency band attenuates about 47 dB in the first meter it travels. Without getting too caught up in math, a quality received signal for a Wi-Fi user device is about -70 dBm. This converts to one ten-millionth of 1 milliwatt. In other words, the average Wi-Fi signal passing through your body is in the millionths of 1 milliwatt. Sure, you could be standing directly underneath an AP mounted in the ceiling and receive a -40 dBm signal, which would mean that 1/10,000th of 1 milliwatt is now hitting you on the head. My point is that any exposure to Wi-Fi energy is meager.
But what about the long-term effects of exposure to Wi-Fi? For this, I'll borrow an analogy from well-known Wi-Fi expert Keith Parsons. Suppose we place 10 Wi-Fi access points in a circle, each transmitting at maximum power, with a person sitting at the center just one meter away. How much RF energy would that person actually absorb? The answer might surprise you. Based on Keith's analysis — which accounts for the actual power density at 1 meter and the FCC's SAR framework for RF absorption — a full 24 hours inside that ring of APs delivers the same RF energy to your body as roughly one minute of midday sun on your skin. That's not a typo. One minute of sunshine equals a full day surrounded by blasting Wi-Fi. The real danger in that scenario isn't the access points — it's the sunburn. Better break out the sunscreen before you turn on the Wi-Fi.
So, are there any resources that refute the erroneous claims of Wi-Fi making you sick? Yes, the Wi-Fi Alliance takes any concern about the alleged health impact of Wi-Fi technology seriously. They offer a brochure on the topic along with other links to independent studies.
Bottom line, Wi-Fi won’t make you bald, but I can’t say the same for your furry companions. Since we don’t have a definitive study on pets and RF exposure, why take chances? Wrap them up in a tin-foil hat and let them surf the web in style.