Page 32 - Summer 2019 Journal

Thousands of peer- reviewed, scientific studies point to adverse biological effects from electro- magnetic radiation emitted by mobile devices and the infrastructure they require.
ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
People figured out how to generate, store and transmit electricity about two hundred years ago. After a Danish scientist discovered electromagnetism in 1819, electric developments progressed rapidly, radically changing domestic life, creating entertainment industries and al- lowing speedy international communication. The telegraph arrived in 1844, the telephone in 1875 and the first power plant in 1882. Radio became available in the 1890s. By 1904, you could buy an electric washing machine, and by 1913, a refrigerator.
Government agencies soon began protect- ing the new industries. In 1934, Congress cre- ated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC regulations clarify that manufactur- ers may sell electronic products as long as they do not create “harmful interference” with exist- ing radio or TV broadcasts, a definition that has since broadened to include cellular and Internet services. However, the agency’s pro-industry definition of “harmful interference” has never included biological harm, which may be why a 2015 Harvard report called the FCC a “captured agency.”1 Unashamedly, FCC regulations safe- guard neither the public nor our environment.
In 1996, Congress passed the industry- friendly Telecommunications Act. Section 704 prohibits municipalities from denying permits to install cellular antennas based on health or environmental concerns. Also in the mid-1990s, to determine whether mobile devices were safe enough to market, engineers filled the head of a two-hundred-and-twenty-pound mannequin with salty fluid, took its temperature and gave it a cell phone for six minutes. Because this dummy’s temperature did not change by two degrees Celsius after six minutes—call this a test of immediate, thermal effects of EMR exposure—the FCC has allowed consumers to buy increasingly powerful mobile devices ever since.2
NON-THERMAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Human organs—including our brains and hearts—function by intricate electrochemical signals. We depend on these signals to digest
food, make decisions and know when to sleep. Even at rest, all of our cells have measurable voltage.
It is astonishing, therefore, that the FCC has never recognized or assessed the non-thermal effects of EMR exposure, including the ef- fects of cumulative or combined exposures or potential effects on pregnant women, infants, children, people with medical implants and wildlife. Thousands of peer-reviewed, scientific studies conducted by other parties now point to adverse biological effects from EMR emitted by mobile devices and the infrastructure they require, including “single and double stranded DNA breaks, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal be- havior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumors.”3
One of the most recent studies was a twenty- five million dollar rodent study conducted by the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicol- ogy Program, which showed that cell phone ra- diation increases the risk of brain tumors, heart tumors and DNA damage—and those effects arose from 2G (second-generation) technology first introduced in the 1990s.4 Other new stud- ies link heavy, long-term cell phone use (more than two hours per day for more than fifteen years) with elevated thyroid cancer risk.5,6,7 In the U.S., rates for new thyroid cancer cases have increased 3.1 percent per year over the last decade.7 New research also shows, cautiously, that maternal cell phone use may be associated with shorter pregnancy duration and increased risk for preterm birth.8
In children, screen-time exposure (different from EMR exposure) harms brain develop- ment and can lead to addiction, eye problems and aggressive behavior.9 This has not stopped schools from giving tablets to young children and replacing teachers with screens.10 Research also indicates that digital technologies are caus- ing adult attention span to dwindle.11
5G AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS Alongside the ample evidence of biologi- cal harm from wireless technologies, there are mounting problems with security and privacy. Other downsides include the technologies’ ex- ponentially increasing and unsustainable energy
30
Wise Traditions
SUMMER 2019