Comment by gorilla_fight

> Since you don't have eyes sensitive to the EM wavelength of Wi-Fi, you can't shine a 'wifi light' too brightly next to you.

This is dangerously wrong. Vision damage is not prevented by the wavelength not being in the visible spectrum. Even if you can't see it, and even if it is non-ionizing, electromagnetic waves still impart energy.

Eyes cannot efficiently dissipate heat, so sufficiently strong EMF will damage the eye. This is a well-known risk when operating with strong microwave signals, for example.

"Effects of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Radiation on the Eye", J. A. D’AndreaS. Chalfin, NATO Science Series book series (ASHT, volume 82)

> Most of the early research was carried out in the lower portion of the microwave spectrum (at 2.45 GHz) and demonstrated a high dose response relationship between microwave exposure and cataract induction. For example, Carpenter and Van Ummersen irradiated anesthetized rabbits at 2.45 GHz and showed a decreasing threshold for cataractogenesis from 4 minute exposure at 400 mW/cm2 to 40 minutes at 80 mW/cm2• Guy et al. ... repeated some of the earlier research and found essentially the same threshold for cataract production in rabbits exposed with a near field applicator at 2.45 GHz. At minimum, they determined that 150 mW/cm2 was required for 100 min to produce a cataract.

Not saying your Wi-Fi router is going to cause cataracts, but don't think just because you can't see something it can't hurt your vision. In fact, it could be argued invisibly strong EMF is _more_ dangerous than visible light because it doesn't trigger the self-protective blink reflex.