Many people object to the idea that microwave radiation at non-thermal levels causes illness and injury. They object to studies that show an association between, for example, cell phone use and brain tumors. One of the main objections is that there is no biological mechanism. Because the radiation used in wireless technologies is below the threshold required to alter chemicals, it simply defies the laws of physics. The associations are just the result of badly designed experiments.
On the other hand, I know many people who experience acute symptoms when exposed to non-ionizing radiation, whether from cell phones, cordless phones, blackberries, wireless routers, Smart Meters, and on and on. These people believe to their bones that those sources make them sick.
Last week, a theoretical biologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, William Bruno, published a paper titled “What does photon energy tell us about cellphone safety?” Dr. Bruno first observes that the belief that microwave radiation cannot cause health effects is based on well-known physics—the energy contained in the individual photon in which the radiation is delivered is too small to have an effect on molecules. However, Dr. Bruno goes on to describe another well-known phenomenon that could account for health effects.
A practical application is referred to as optical tweezers, which are used to manipulate an individual bacteria—and in the process damage it. Optical tweezers do not work based on the energy of a single photon but instead on the properties of a collection of photons, specifically photons packed into a cube with sides equal to the wavelength of the radiation. The more photons in that cube, the more powerful the effect. The physics that makes optical tweezers work is also true for cellphones and cell towers and other wireless devices.
According to Dr. Bruno, in order to have no optical tweezers-like effect, a person would have to be “a few miles” away from the nearest cell tower. He goes on to describe how this mechanism plausibly accounts for the many health effects reported as the result of exposures to radiation from wireless technologies. He concludes that “Arguments in support of safety based on basic physics appear not to hold up.”
A blog post about Dr. Bruno’s paper on Technology Review opens by saying “If there’s one topic likely to generate spit-flecked ire, it is the controversy over the potential health threat posed by cell phone signals.” The comments that followed the post fulfilled that prediction. Dr. Bruno was roundly criticized for his scientific deficiencies. Most of the criticisms were just flatly wrong. But they weren’t lacking in venom.
I wondered why these people were so angry to the point of hysteria? They clearly understood something about the science. Yet their reaction went far beyond the Enlightenment ideal of rationally weighing evidence and evaluating the coherence of Dr. Bruno’s argument.
This kind of response is not unique to wireless technologies. It’s been evoked by almost every challenge to new technologies for which evidence arises showing harm: ionizing radiation, petrochemical agriculture and energy production, genetically modified organisms, and on and on. Typically, the evidence first shows up in the experience of people and communities who figure out the exposure has made them sick and demand that it stop. Scientists who take these people seriously get involved and try to find out what mechanism might link the exposure to the ill effects.
This is, of course, a stupid way to do things. Before people are even exposed, they should have a reasonable assurance that some new gadget or food or what have you will not cause harm—either as an acute injury or as a chronic illness. But that’s another story.
Inevitably, the various boosters of the new technology defend its safety and attack the credibility of the people who believe they are victims as well as the science and scientists who support those victims. Because money and careers are involved, it’s not hard to figure out what inclines boosters to do such things. What puzzles me is why bystanders take the side of the boosters in a particularly hysterical, spit-flecked way.
I think two very human things are going on.
One is that it’s really hard to figure out what to do from simply looking at a pile of facts. Typically, we figure out how to resolve a controversy by looking to those in authority or those whose views we hold in high regard. By the way, this is not a flaw but a very important feature of our adaptive success as a species: learn from others.
The other very human thing that happens has to do with anger arising from fear. If the world isn’t the way it’s supposed to be as we understand it from all those authorities reinforced by environmental cues, we are likely to be frightened—a gut reaction. Our world is threatened. We are threatened. Again, this is not a flaw but a very important feature of our adaptive success as a species: follow your gut.
For some people, the gut reaction evoked by those who claim to be victims of a technology is fear.
For other people, the gut reaction is to feel for the victims’ suffering. And it too is not a flaw but a very important feature of our adaptive success as a species: empathy and compassion. Some systems of authority, environmental cues, and physical exposures favor fear. Others favor compassion. I like the compassion ones best.
