How much risk?
March 23, 2024
How much risk are you willing to take with your health?
What about your family’s health?
We need to be taking precautions to reduce people’s exposure to wireless radiation and protect people’s health now, say researchers writing in the current issue of the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
The authors point out that today we’re being exposed to more wireless (radiofrequency) radiation than ever. ‘The built environment of homes, offices, schools, hospitals, and all commercial public and private spaces are now exposed to strong radiofrequency radiation (RFR) (in some cases exceeding a field strength of 7 V/m) from 2.4G, 5G, and 6G Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices, including the Internet of Things (IoT). Companies like Space X and Amazon intend to envelope the Earth with satellites transmitting 5G services. Smartphones, smartwatches, fitness and medical devices, tablets, and laptops also can provide particularly intense exposures because of their close proximity to the body. All of these wireless sources expose humans and the environment 24/7 to human-made, modulated, pulsed, polarized, and biologically active microwave radiofrequency radiation.’
There’s abundant evidence that this radiation harms the body and the environment.
-
Studies show that wireless radiation ‘disrupts normal functioning of living cells’ and increase free radical activity, which is associated with serious health problems.
-
Children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation as they have a lifetime of exposure ahead of them.
-
‘Fetal exposure to cellphone radiation has been reported to lead to lifelong behavioral changes, as well as to alterations in the quantity and quality of the hippocampus – a brain component critical to long-term memory, balance, and synthesis of abstract reasoning.’
-
The ICARC has classified wireless radiation as a ‘possible’ carcinogen and there is evidence that it a ‘probable’ carcinogen.
-
It has harmful effects on insects ‘including impacts on flight, foraging and feeding, short-term memory, and mortality’ … decreased egg-laying rate, and reduce colony strength [of bees]’
Yet the standards that are supposed to protect us are based on the outdated (1950s) assumption that it’s only the heating effects of radiation that we need to worry about and they ignore evidence to the contrary, the authors say.
Which is extremely useful for industry.
‘There are huge financial incentives for industry to adhere to the current thermal-only exposure guidelines. Complying with nonthermal guidelines would likely result in higher costs associated with cell tower siting and equipment redesign. In addition, as a practical matter, acute thermal effects can be measured and modeled precisely and reliably.’
The authors cite an example of industry interference with research findings. They describe it like this.
‘… the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), a Washington, DC-based lobbyist for the wireless telecommunications sector, recruited the services of George Carlo to help counter negative media coverage and science. Thus, in 1995, he headed up the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) project with $28.5 million in funding. Carlo was seen as a “safe pair of hands,” as he had previously helped the paper and chlorine industries fight measures to regulate dioxins, which are highly toxic. Among other things, the purpose of this initiative was to counter the EPA’s findings, debunk the growing body of research conducted by independent scientists, and manage the negative media publicity linking cell phones with brain cancer.
‘The WTR research program did not turn out as expected: Carlo alleges that the program’s studies uncovered evidence of the risk of adverse health effects to humans from RFR and that these findings were rejected by industry.’
It’s not surprising. Carlo found increased rates of acoustic neuromas (benign tumour of the auditory nerve), rare neuroepithelial tumours, deaths from brain cancer and indications of genetic damage from mobile phone use.
The authors of the present paper are calling for this to change.
‘Today, we are with RFR from wireless devices where we were with asbestos and tobacco in the 1970s. Sufficient scientific evidence has accumulated to demonstrate the risk of adverse health effects to humans from exposure to RFR at permitted levels of exposure. Children and fetuses are especially at risk, as are insect species in the environment. It is time to act now to reduce exposure, rather than insisting on more proof of human or environmental harm. Indeed, emerging studies of children and wireless devices are providing evidence of serious behavioral and cognitive consequences that may well be tied with both physiological and psychological consequences of exposures.’
‘In essence: It is better to be safe than to be sorry,’ they conclude.
Paul Ben Ishai, Hillel Z. Baldwin, Linda S. Birnbaum, Tom Butler, Kent Chamberlin, Devra L. Davis, Theodora Scarato & Hugh Taylor (2024) Applying the Precautionary Principle to Wireless Technology: Policy Dilemmas and Systemic Risks, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 66:2, 5-18, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2024.2293631
What can you do?
Use radiation-free modems and routers for safer internet access. There’s no need to exposure yourself and your family when you can access the internet without any wireless exposure at all. Fill in the form on this link for your personalised quote
What else can you do?