Mercury used  to be medicine. Leaky Gut was a hoax. Hand washing used to be unnecessary. Germs used to be imaginary. Smoking used to be safe, and leaded gasoline was once safe as well. 

Just because we don’t understand something does not mean there is no risk. Each of us can look at just the people in our own lives and understand that we are all affected differently by life. Just because a thing, anything, is not a problem for you does not mean it’s not a problem for someone else. If you are fortunate enough to be completely healthy, great. With that in mind, disdain for people who are not healthy is sad, and woefully ignorant. Our species seems to be very short on compassion and slaves to our own world views. 

I assume you do not own a cell phone? And if wireless data transmissions are so dangerous, why would one wish to invest in a product which uses wireless data transmission as a core function? 

Or, (as I suspect) did you just sign up today to spread your foo?  

My comment was mostly about the condescending nature of so many of the replies, not my stance on EMF safety. The point is we really don’t know if some among us are particularly sensitive to some forms of EMF. To assume that we know, for sure, that there is no danger would be to totally disregard how wrong we’ve been (as a species) on so many topics, and for such a long time. We don’t have everything figured out yet. 

I’m not sure what foo is, but the reason I came today is because I’m thinking of adding another SONOS device to my home (currently running 2 SONOS Connect, wired) and part of that decisions is due diligence on researching the risk, as this one is going in my son’s room. As I stated above, we (I) don’t have it figured out. My earlier response was intended to remind the other posters, especially the dismissive, condescending posters that pay no attention to history, that they don’t have it figured out either. The difference is, I don’t act like I have it figured out.  

Because science was wrong in the past (and note, some of your examples predate widespread use of the scientific method) does not mean every scientific concept is wrong in the future.  That’s not how it works.  If one is suspect of the status quo thinking on non-ionizing radiation’s effect on the human body, one should put forth a hypothesis, followed up with rigorous scientific experiment/studies, and if the hypothesis is right, publish their findings in a peer reviewed scientific publication. 

So far, every rigorous, peer reviewed experiment/study points to the levels of non-ionizing radiation used in WiFi being safe.  On the other hand, all evidence to the contrary is internet based speculation and downright fear mongering having nothing to do with science.  So as far as we “don’t have it figured out”, goes, well, yes . . . yes we do.  It’s not like this has not been studied.

I figure my Sonos are subjecting me to less radiation then the neighbors around me with their WiFi and phones, not to mention mine. Oh, and not to mention the cell tower I can see from the back porch.

RF radiation management is a huge pain and you need to prioritize the sources you want to remove or block. Making it harder you need to do this at any location you spend much time at.

I’m not worried but I do worry when folks get fed misleading information which leads to poor decisions. Not saying yours is good or bad but that you need to verify as well as you can before acting.