Radiation.

The xxx video sex with babyword inspires fear and images of mushroom clouds and meltdowns. And when people hear that their WiFi routers and cellphones emit radiation, they get scared.

In response, maybe they read the recent FDA and FCC reports saying the electromagnetic radiation produced by cellphones and wireless devices is safe for humans. Or maybe they get sucked into an Instagram hole, where people sell crystal pyramids that promise to convert radiation "into positive energy."

“Because radiation is such a scary term, I think it's incredibly easy to mislead people,” said David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher who studies public understanding of science. “I would argue there's an awful lot of profiteering off of people's fears and misunderstanding implicit in this weird Instagram world.”

View this post on Instagram

You can find the hashtag #EMFprotection — which refers to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation — on nearly 35,000 Instagram posts, many warning of the cancer risks of cellphones and WiFi routers. Many share conspiracy theories involving government and corporate cover-ups. And, of course, there are so, so many crystals, which promise to block radiation with "energy fields." The problem is so bad the FTC warned against "cell phone radiation scams" on its consumer information page.

In both theory and practice, there's little reason to view the radiation emitted by WiFi routers and cellphones as a health threat.

The type of radiation emitted by our digital devices is what’s known as “non-ionizing,” meaning it does not contain enough energy to cause damage to cells, like sunlight or X-rays. Increased amounts of this kind of radiation do not change that; more weak particles do not make their effect stronger.

Still, people are making money by warning people to avoid it. The popular account @emf_protection advertises crystals, de-toxifying patches, amulets, cellphone-shielding patches, stroller covers, and much more. It has over 21,000 followers, and is affiliated with a Gmail account (which Mashable contacted) called "The Fifth Ashram." There is no other public information on who is behind this account, but there are plenty of links to buy products.

WiFi toxicity influencers aren't just on Instagram. Ann Louise Gittleman, a nutritionist who promotes a diet that she describes as "detox beyond keto" and warns about the dangers of WiFi and cellular radiation, gave an extensive interview in Goop and sells a book, Zapped, on the topic.

Most recently, Miranda Kerr, the supermodel, wellness entrepreneur, and wife of Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel, gave an interview that went viral to NewBeauty about "healthy living." In it, she describes the multiple products she uses to shield her home and family from EMF waves.

"We have a lot," Kerr said. "We have the stickers you put on the back of your phone for radiation. I have the EMF detector that picks up the waves in the air. I’ve had the whole house checked by a professional who looks for things like EMF waves and things like that. I even have something installed in my Malibu house to turn out all the power while we sleep."

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

August Brice is warm and earnest, a bubbly former news broadcaster and marketer. These days, she runs an Instagram account called TechWellness with more than 11,000 followers, as well as a related website, where she aims to help people reform their relationships with technology.

Her posts explore issues like privacy and screen time — as well as WiFi toxicity. As a sufferer of what she calls a "sensitivity" to WiFi radiation (also called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS), she considers EMF "like any other toxin."

Brice and other sufferers allege they have science at their back, and post online about their own experiences in groups like "We Are the Evidence".

View this post on Instagram

EHS is a real condition codified by the World Health Organization (WHO), with just one caveat: There’s no evidence that WiFi or cellular radiation causes these symptoms.

“It's a very real, very troubling condition,” Grimes said. “The only thing that sufferers get wrong is the cause of their malady.”

EHS' symptoms are diffuse and not necessarily consistent from sufferer to sufferer, but often include skin inflammation and fatigue.

Brice says she has felt negative physical effects like body zaps, nausea, and headaches ever since she first held a cellphone. So mixed among posts on issues like screen time are guides on how to reduce exposure to WiFi radiation.

“It’s really resonating with moms,” Brice told Mashable. “Moms and families. Moms are most concerned because they have to be on the lookout for the safety of their children, and the health of their children.”

The EHS community thrives offline, too. Brice recently attended an EHS conference where she met doctors as well as sufferers who don protective clothing and netting head to toe.

View this post on Instagram

Dafna Tachover, who says she lives with EHS, was featured in a 2015 article in New York Magazine exploring "both sides" of the science behind the condition.

Brice says she wants to help people protect themselves — which includes selling products on her website, like cellphone cases ($29), radiation detection meters ($180 - $370), and EMF-blocking bed canopies ($1,162).

The facts

In August, amid concerns about 5Gand some independent experimentstesting phone radiation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reaffirmed that the electromagnetic radiation produced by cellphones and wireless devices is safe.

On EMF and EHS, researchers have conducted multiple provocation studies, the standard for testing whether the presence of an item or substance triggers a reaction. (Scientists place the supposed trigger near the subject, both with and without their knowledge, to test reactions.) A 2010 review of 31 of these studies could not establish a causal link between the presence of EMF and allergy/sensitivity symptoms.

What’s more, the definitive long-term study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation show no correlation between exposure to this type of radiation and cancer rates; a 2015 study from the EU's Scientific Committees came to the same conclusion. That hasn't stopped the public from conflating dangerous (ionizing) and benign (non-ionizing) radiation.

Even taking WiFi toxicity influencers in good faith, there's a problem with "raising awareness." EHS is understood as a product of the “nocebo effect.” That is, people will experience symptoms when they believe something that causes suffering is present.

“If you're trying to think that something's making you ill, it's entirely psychologically understandable that you will report the effects,” Grimes said. “There's loads of data on that, actually, for different things.”

Grimes says that telling people about this alleged danger can actually induce the nocebo effect, causing someone to contract EHS just by hearing about it. When I asked Brice about this possible effect of her work, she says she tries to be sensitive, but also thinks people should have all the information.

“Change happens when there’s thoughtful awareness,” Brice said of her work on both EHS and tech wellness as a whole. By raising awareness, she hopes companies and government agencies will do a better job of warning about and protecting the public from EMF radiation.

Brice seamlessly integrates EHS issues with more established tech health issues, like the effects of social media; for her, and her followers, they are one and the same. And that's a problem. Differentiating real threats from scientifically unfounded fears can be even harder when they’re placed alongside each other, as they are on Goop, Brice’s TechWellness sites, and others.

View this post on Instagram

There is a lot we still don't know about how technology affects us. That can lead people to conspiracy theories, misinformation, and misunderstanding. For example, an oft-cited fact is that the WHO classifies cellphone radiation as a "possible carcinogen."

Grimes explained that most things fall into this category — because it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. What the classification actually means is that there is no evidence that this sort of radiation iscarcinogenic. Multiple expert health organizations echo this somewhat nuanced sentiment: there is no conclusive evidence for a link between EMF radiation and cancer, but since it's a difficult thing to determine, concerned people can take precautions, if they want.

It's all very confusing. To make things worse, big tech companies haven't exactly been open about how their products might affect individuals and society at large. How are ordinary people supposed to separate fact from fear?

That fear and confusion can have ripple effects that undermine faith in our institutions, and the authority of facts and science.

“If you accept the idea that these devices are harmful, then you accept the idea that all these medical agencies are lying to you,” Grimes said. “Misdirected fear imperils our ability to understand the world.”