Wireless charging can cause cancer

Is wireless charging harmful?

TL; DR

Probably No .
Unless it was powerful enough to cause damage by heating or shock you immediately.

Wireless charging information

Most cell phones are wirelessly charged according to the Qi or PMA standard:

While the Qi standard works over the approximate frequency range of 100 to 200 kHz, the PMA standard (Power Matters Alliance) delivers up to 5 W over almost twice this frequency

The frequency used belongs in the Low frequency band . The low frequency band is in the Intermediate frequencies included . The guidelines don't seem to focus very much on this frequency range. Everything I found relating to "low frequency" was about "extremely low frequency" (power lines).

World Health Organization for Intermediate Frequencies

For the purposes of this document, the intermediate frequency (IF) range of the EMF spectrum is defined as being between the ELF and RF ranges. 300 Hz to 10 MHz. A relatively small number of studies have been conducted on the biological effects or health risks of IF fields

Health research is focused on other EM frequencies

I'm using less reliable links here as it's not wireless charging.The links are also more general, just to explain where some of the scary claims about EM frequencies would apply

Within RF (Wiki):

Outside RF:

  • Ionizing radiation (the Causes DNA damage and cancer ) or non-ionizing intermediate radiation, which still generates a certain ionization (Wiki)

Health effects of low frequency radiation

World Health Organization about low frequency electric fields (additional Emphasis ):

Warming is the main biological effect the electromagnetic fields of high frequency fields. In microwave ovens, this fact is used to reheat food. The high frequency fields that humans face normally exposed are much lower than those required to produce significant heating.

So the main problem would be heating. But it probably doesn't heat.

The heating effect of radio waves forms the basis for current guidelines. Scientists are also investigating the possibility that long-term exposure causes effects below the body warming threshold . So far have been no harmful effects of low long-term exposure confirmed with high frequency or power frequency fields, but scientists are actively researching in this area

And if it doesn't heat, it's probably not harmful.

World Health Organization for Intermediate frequencies (additional Emphasis ):

With the exception of medical diagnostic and treatment devices, human exposure to IF- Devices usually use the recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Limit values .

While strong fields in the upper IF range can cause thermal damage (a relatively slow process that requires the fabric to be kept at high temperatures for a period of time), some of the most obvious dangers can come through acute exposure against electrical currents occurring in the body step through Membrane excitation . This nonthermal mechanism results from changes in membrane potential induced by external fields and occurs, for example, when stimulating peripheral nerves and muscle cells. Another mechanism is electroporation, which is the reversible or irreversible destruction of cell membranes when a field induces excessive electrical potentials across them. This can be done by electric shock too Cause tissue injuries

Unless you immediately get shock or automatic nerves.

miscellaneous

Similarly, are we in the tobacco industry in the 1950s, with ads praising doctors?

They only successfully bought television commercials with doctors. Analogy means that you have successfully purchased peer-reviewed journals and scientific consensus.

Is this really a "Class 2B carcinogen"?

Yes, the World Health Organization is talking about health risks associated with cell phones and their base stations (additional Emphasis ):

RF fields have been recognized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified as possibly carcinogenic for humans (group 2B) . Previous studies have provided no evidence that exposure of the environment to RF fields, for example from base stations, increases the risk of cancer or other diseases.


AAAS criticized the WHO's poor explanation of the terminology in cell phones that offer lessons in risk communication:

"That classification represented" the weakest result they could come to, "with no clear evidence to disprove a link, Gray said, but the terminology could confuse people.