Is Your Smart Home Too Connected?

We have spent years making our homes smarter. Now one physician is asking whether it is time to make them a little less connected.

There was a time when the most technologically advanced thing in the bedroom was an alarm clock.

Today, the average home can have Wi-Fi routers, smart televisions, speakers, security cameras, doorbells, thermostats, appliances, lighting, watches, earbuds, tablets and phones communicating around the clock. Even the vacuum cleaner may be connected to the cloud.

We have embraced much of it for good reason. Smart technology can make a home safer, more comfortable and wonderfully convenient. At FINE, we have covered everything from smart-home features people actually appreciate to the new generation of quiet-luxury home gadgets.

But there is another question worth asking.

Just because something can be connected 24 hours a day, does it need to be?

Dr. Rob Brown thinks homeowners should at least consider the answer. Brown is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and author of UnPlug: A Radiologist Explores the Damage Caused by Electropollution and How You Can Prevent It. His position on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, commonly called RF-EMF, is more cautious than the current position of major public-health organizations.

That distinction matters.

Brown believes the accumulation of wireless technology in our homes deserves more attention. The World Health Organization, meanwhile, says research has not confirmed adverse health effects from ordinary low-level, long-term RF exposure, although scientists continue to study possible biological effects.

The interesting question for homeowners may not be who can produce the most alarming headline. It may be whether we have reached a point where some technology no longer earns its place.

What Is Actually Floating Around Your House

Walk through a modern home and the number of connected devices becomes surprisingly long.

Brown starts outside.

“The first emitter I typically notice is the smart meter,” he says.

Inside, he points to Wi-Fi routers, phones, tablets, televisions, wireless computer peripherals, printers, speakers, virtual assistants, security systems, smart appliances, connected light bulbs and wearables.

None of this means that walking into a smart home is dangerous. It does illustrate how dramatically our electromagnetic environment has changed.

WHO makes an important distinction here. A biological effect is not automatically a health effect. The body reacts biologically to countless things, including exercise, sunlight and food. Researchers therefore need to determine not merely whether RF exposure produces a measurable cellular response, but whether that response leads to actual harm in people.

That remains one of the central points of scientific debate.

Where Dr. Brown Disagrees With the Mainstream View

Brown argues that current exposure standards put too much emphasis on the heating effects of radiofrequency radiation and not enough on possible biological effects occurring below those levels.

There is published research behind that concern.

A 2016 review in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine examined experimental studies of low-intensity radiofrequency exposure and reported evidence of oxidative effects in biological systems. Oxidative stress occurs when the balance between free radicals and the body's antioxidant defenses is disrupted.

That does not, however, prove that household Wi-Fi causes disease.

This is where the distinction becomes important.

Laboratory evidence of cellular change, observational associations and evidence that something causes disease in humans are not interchangeable. Brown interprets the emerging research more cautiously than current public-health recommendations do. WHO's position remains that adverse health consequences from normal low-level EMF exposure have not been confirmed.

Cancer research is similarly complicated. Scientists continue investigating RF exposure, and some animal research has produced findings worthy of further study. At the same time, evidence in humans has not established that ordinary wireless-device exposure causes cancer.

For homeowners, that means there is room for reasonable precaution without treating every wireless speaker like radioactive waste.

The Bedroom Is an Easy Place to Start

The bedroom may be the most sensible room in which to reconsider connectivity, although not necessarily for the reason you might expect.

Phones, tablets and televisions already have well-established ways of interfering with sleep. Notifications invite us to check one more message. Endless scrolling has a remarkable ability to turn 10:30 p.m. into 12:47 a.m. Blue-enriched evening light can also interfere with the body's normal sleep-wake signals.

Brown goes further and believes reducing RF exposure overnight is worthwhile as well.

His recommendation is straightforward.

“I recommend removing all wireless technology from the bedroom,” he says.

That may be unrealistic for many people, and medically necessary connected devices should never be disconnected simply to reduce wireless exposure. But the broader idea is useful even without accepting every part of Brown's argument.

Do you really need a Wi-Fi router beside the bed? Probably not.

Does your phone need to sit six inches from your head all night? Also probably not.

And if you are already struggling with sleep, creating a calmer bedroom with fewer screens, alerts and glowing electronics is hardly a radical experiment.

We have previously looked at whether sleep technology actually helps people rest better. The answer often comes back to the same principle. Technology works best when it supports healthy habits rather than becoming the habit itself.

Distance Is Your Friend

One of Brown's simplest recommendations is also based on basic physics.

“Distance is your friend,” he says.

Radiofrequency exposure generally decreases as you move farther from a source, although real-world exposure patterns can be more complicated than the textbook inverse-square model because of antennas, reflections and the way devices adjust their transmitting power.

Still, proximity matters.

A phone against the body represents a different exposure situation from a router across a room.

That makes Brown's advice less about panic and more about placement.

A router does not necessarily belong beside the sofa where someone works for eight hours. A phone does not have to live in a pocket every waking minute. Wireless devices that can be placed farther away can usually be placed farther away without sacrificing their usefulness.

These are small decisions, which may be exactly why they are appealing.

Not Everything Needs Wi-Fi

Here is where Brown and I may find the easiest common ground.

Our homes have developed an enthusiasm for connecting things that worked perfectly well before they learned our Wi-Fi password.

Brown is much more skeptical of smart homes than I am. He told FINE he does not believe most connected-home conveniences are worth the additional wireless exposure and favors hardwired alternatives whenever practical.

I would not go that far.

Good smart-home technology can improve security, energy efficiency, accessibility and everyday convenience.

But Brown raises a good design question.

What is this connection actually doing for me?

A security camera that lets you check your home while traveling has an obvious purpose.

A thermostat that improves comfort and reduces wasted energy may earn its connection.

A smart appliance that sends your phone a notification because the dishwasher finished doing exactly what dishwashers have done for decades is a slightly harder sell.

Smart should mean useful, not simply connected.

The 24-Hour Dumb Home Experiment

Brown suggests trying what he calls a “dumb home” challenge.

For 24 hours, disconnect whatever technology you genuinely do not need. Turn off unnecessary smart speakers. Put away the smartwatch. Download music or podcasts rather than streaming constantly. Read a book. Take a walk. Work on something around the house.

You