Suppose several hundred marine biologists studied your swimming pool. 47% (or 69% or 77% or 83%) of the biologists report you’ve got a shark in your pool. Would you dive in? Would you let your kids dive in?
Of the hundreds of studies that have been conducted on the health effects of radio frequency radiation, the kind of radiation we are exposed to from sources like cell phones and their antennas, cordless phones, wireless routers, and other wireless technologies like the soon-to-be released iPhone, 47% of those studies found increased cancer risks, 69% found disruptions to cell function, 77% found disruptions to electrical signaling in the body, and 83% found physiological and behavioral disruptions.
Last month a BBC television program caused a minor sensation when it claimed to find wireless networks in schools exposed children to three times the radiation of cell phone antennas. It got the attention of the Health Protection Agency, something like the British equivalent of the FDA. The agency along with Britain’s major teachers union, are calling for research, precaution, and parental involvement in school decisions to install wireless networks.
Of course, experts were quoted to the effect that there’s no proof that these exposures cause harm. Those voices are much louder in the United States. To my knowledge, no teachers union has a precautionary policy or any other kind of policy regarding wireless networks in schools. And our FDA, instead of raising a precautionary voice, tells us that “the scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones.” Unlike the British, they’re not even considering wireless networks.
So it’s no surprise that this modestly important event in Britain was not covered at all in any US news media. While attention is being paid to the effect of non-ionizing radiation on British school children, wireless networks are eagerly promoted in the US. It’s new, it’s hip, it’s cheap, it’s convenient, it’s part of an exciting (and excitatory) mobile lifestyle.
And that’s OK because there’s no proof that it causes harm. Of course, there’s no proof that it’s safe either. In fact, “proof” is a carefully chosen rhetorical device intended to communicate priestly assurances from “the experts.” Unfortunately, proof has its home in geometry not science. In science, the preferred term is “evidence”—the term used by the FDA to the effect that cell phones and by implication wireless networks in schools are safe.
This makes it easy to say that the FDA’s statement is false. As I mentioned, there’s a good deal of evidence for a wide range of health effects from wireless technologies.
One of the British experts provided assurances about the safety of wireless networks using another clever rhetorical device, one I’m sure you’ve heard yourself. We’ve been exposed to radio frequency radiation for 100 years, he said. If it’s harmful, why aren’t people dropping like flies? To which the correct answer is “How do you know they aren’t?”
Meanwhile, as we await scientific consensus, do you want your kids to dive into the wireless swimming pool?
