ON THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE RISKS TO CHILDREN FROM SMARTPHONE AND WIFI RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to
Children from Smartphone and WiFi
Radio Frequency Radiation
Professor Tom Butler | University College Cork | tbutler@ucc.ie
Children’s health and well-being is under significant threat from
everyday digital technologies, as the past 15 years have seen
the proliferation of microwave Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR)
devices in the home, school and society. The safety standards
for such devices—smartphones, tablets etc.—were based on the
proven thermal or heating effects of microwave devices in
adults, not children. Scientists in the life sciences have long
been aware of equally harmful non-thermal effects. However,
physicists and engineers have operated on the theory that non-
ionizing RFR could not directly damage human DNA and lead to
cancer, as it was far less powerful than ionizing radiation (x-
rays, nuclear etc.). That theory has been solidly and roundly
refuted, as this paper illustrates. Cancer risks aside, research
studies have demonstrated that low-intensity RFR elicits a range
of pathophysiological conditions in experimental animals and
humans. This is why parents, educators and governments
should be alarmed and take immediate and appropriate action.
In an Irish, and indeed international context, there is clear
ignorance on such matters. In response, this paper aims to
inform by presenting clear evidence, in a balanced manner, of
the risks to children based on proven scientific theories and
empirical evidence. The paper concludes by offering practical
advice on how the risks to children, and indeed adults, can be
minimised.
1
On the Clear Evidence of the
Risks to Children from
Smartphone and WiFi Radio
Frequency Radiation
Professor Tom Butler
University College Cork
tbutler@ucc.ie
“The level of proof required to justify action for health
protection should be less than that required to constitute
causality as a scientific principle”
Professor Rainer Frentzel-Beyme MD
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................ 3
Introduction ...................................................................... 3
Proof of the Potential Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of RFR ........ 4
What are the Biological Mechanisms that Produce Ill-health in
Children and Adults? ......................................................... 7
Evidence that Microwave RFR Promotes the Development of
Existing Cancers ................................................................ 9
Why are Existing Standards Unsafe? ..................................... 9
What do Insurance Companies and Regulators and Telecoms
Operators have to say about the Risks? ............................. 11
Discussion ....................................................................... 12
Conclusions ..................................................................... 14
About the Author.............................................................. 17
References ...................................................................... 17
2
Abstract male infertility; neuropsychiatric
conditions, including post-natal neural
Children’s health and well-being is under development, and learning and cognitive
significant threat from everyday digital problems; and melatonin reduction
technologies, as the past 15 years have leading to sleep disruption; among
seen the proliferation of microwave others. There is a considerable body of
Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) devices evidence on the harmful effects of
in the home, school and society. The electromagnetic pollution that should
safety standards for such devices— have the World Health Organization
smartphones, tablets etc.—were based (WHO) and governing bodies
on the proven thermal effects of establishing guidelines to protect public
microwave devices in adults, not health, as they have with environmental
children. Scientists in the life sciences pollution. In light of recent scientific
have long been aware of equally harmful evidence, in May 2015 over 200 eminent
non-thermal effects. However, physicists scientists have launched an international
and engineers have operated on the appeal to the United Nations and the
theory that non-ionizing RFR could not WHO based on the conviction that there
directly damage human DNA and lead to is a real and present danger to children,
cancer, as it was far less powerful than in particular, by what they consider
ionizing radiation (x-rays, nuclear etc.). outdated industry standards in relation
That theory has been solidly and roundly to microwave radiation.
refuted, as this paper illustrates. Cancer
On November 1st 2018, the final report
risks aside, research studies have
of a 10-year $30m comprehensive study
demonstrated that low-intensity RFR
by US National Institute of
elicits a range of pathophysiological
Environmental Health Sciences’ National
conditions in experimental animals and
Toxicology Program (NTP) confirmed that
humans. This is why parents, educators
radio frequency radiation (RFR) from
and governments should be alarmed and
Smartphones caused cancer in animals.1
take immediate and appropriate action.
That study clearly refutes the long-held
In an Irish, and indeed international
theory that non-ionizing radiation, such
context, there is clear ignorance on such
as RFR, cannot cause cancers or lead to
matters. In response, this paper aims to
other effects on the health and well-
inform by presenting clear evidence, in a
being of humans. The findings of this
balanced manner, of the risks to children
study opens an ethical Pandora’s Box for
based on proven scientific theories and
mobile phone companies and BigTechs
empirical evidence. The paper concludes
such as Apple, Facebook, Google and
by offering practical advice on how the
others, as the use of microwave RFR
risks to children, and indeed adults, can
technologies underpin their business
be minimised.
models. Such technologies are now
ubiquitous in society, whether it is in the
Introduction home, classroom, workplace, or in
transport systems. The fact that they
Exposure of humans to non-ionizing
might pose a real risk to the health and
radio frequency radiation (RFR) has
well-being of users and particularly
increased dramatically over the past 20
children was never considered. This
years, particularly where children are
creates a dilemma for parents and
concerned. Epidemiological and
educators, as the evidence on the risks
experimental research reports increased
to human health and well-being
risk of pathophysiological conditions with
associated with widespread and
current exposures to Smartphone and
indiscriminate exposure to RFR is clear
WiFi RFR that include: cellular DNA
and unambiguous, with children being
damage, leading to a range of cancers;
particularly at risk.
sperm and testicular damage leading to
3This paper begins by reporting on a safety standards were, and still are,
ground-breaking study by the National centred on the thermal effects (i.e.
Toxicology Program’s (NTP) at the U.S. heating of tissues from microwaves) and
Department of Health and Human not on the non-thermal effects. To be
Services. The final report was issued on sure, the findings of extant research at
November 1st 2018 and in the press the time were mixed, with no clear
release Dr. John Bucher, Senior evidence either way of potential negative
Scientist, at the National Toxicology health implications of low-intensity RFR,
Program stated, “We have concluded especially where cancer was concerned. 4
that there was clear evidence that male In 2011 the IARC classified WiFi and
rats developed cancerous heart tumors microwave radiation from cordless and
called malignant schwannomas. The mobile phones as a possible Class 2B
occurrence of malignant schwannomas in carcinogen. While the findings of
the hearts of male rats is the strongest epidemiological studies have been
cancer finding in our study.” 2 debated, and chiefly focus on the long-
Categorising the major findings as “clear term development of brain tumours, a
evidence” is significant as this is the recent review of such studies is
highest burden of proof in a scientific unequivocal and states that “[m]obile
study by the NTP. It employs 4 levels of phone radiation causes brain tumors and
evidence. Other findings were should be classified as a probable
categorised as Some Evidence (brain human carcinogen (2A)” by the WHO’s
tumours such as glioma and adrenal International Agency for Research on
gland tumours) and Equivocal (cancers Cancer (IARC).5
of the prostate and pituitary glands).
The NTP study is not the first of its
None of the findings were at level 4, No
kind—it confirms the findings of previous
Evidence. The paper discusses these
research on the links between RFR
findings in the context of previous
exposure and various cancers—it is the
research. It then presents the biological
most comprehensive, however. Since
and cellular mechanisms found to be
1999 when the FDA flagged the issue of
responsible for these effects. The paper
potential non-thermal effects of
then presents evidence that RFR
microwave radiation, a wealth of new
promotes the development of existing
experimental and epidemiological
cancers and examines why the existing
research demonstrated the very real
safety standards are not fit for purpose.
biological effects of RFR on the brain,
Next explored are the perspectives of
nervous systems, hearts and testes of
insurance companies and
mammals, including humans. Cancers
telecommunications operators on the
aside, many of these studies consistently
risks.
report a range of side-effects in humans,
from sleep deprivation and headaches,
Proof of the Potential Toxicity and to neurological damage, and learning
Carcinogenicity of RFR disorders. Consequently, in 2014, the
California Medical Association (CMA) 6
In 1999, the US Food and Drug stated that “peer reviewed research has
Administration's (FDA) Center for demonstrated adverse biological effects
Devices and Radiological Health of wireless EMF [i.e. RFR] including
commissioned the National Toxicology single and double stranded DNA breaks,
Program study on the potential toxicity creation of reactive oxygen species,
and carcinogenicity of RFR. 3 The FDA’s immune dysfunction, cognitive
concerns followed the emergence and processing effects, stress protein
widespread use of first generation cell synthesis in the brain, altered brain
phone devices in the early 1980s and development, sleep and memory
second generation (2G) systems in the disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior,
1990s. The health focus and associated
4sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors.” brains of rats and mice exposed to RFR.
The CMA were following the lead of the The findings also reported reduced birth
American Academy of Paediatrics, which weights of rat pups whose mothers were
in 2013 petitioned the US Federal exposed to RFR, in addition to
Communications Commission (FCC) and cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in
to the Food and Drug Administration the rats studied.12
(FDA) to reassess safety standards to
After more than 20 years of widespread
RFR in order to “protect children’s health
cell phone use, one would expect to see
and well-being throughout their lifetimes
a rise in cancers, particularly brain
and reflect current use patterns.”7
tumours. A research review of the
The final peer-reviewed findings of the incidence of glioblastoma multiforme
NTP study were released on November tumours in England during 1995–2015
1st 2018. Given the significance of the reported a “a sustained and highly
findings there was a muted response statistically significant ASR [(incidence
from the press. Coverage from the New rate)] rise in glioblastoma multiforme
York Times argued that the focus on 2G (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM
and 3G technologies somehow weakened more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with
the study’s findings. 8 This is a spurious annual case numbers rising from 983 to
argument, as 4G Smartphones are 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden
backward compatible with 2G and 3G. in the overall data by a reduced
More worryingly the International incidence of lower-grade tumours.”13 The
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation study did not focus on RFR as the cause,
Protection (ICNIRP) decided that the so the findings must be considered ‘open
findings did not provide a reason to to interpretation’ in this regard, as other
revise current (i.e. 20-year-old) RFR environmental mechanisms cannot be
exposure standards. However, Dr. ruled out. Another recent review study
Ronald Melnick rebutted the ICNIRP on epidemiological studies on brain and
analysis stating it contained several false salivary gland tumours and mobile phone
and misleading statements. 9 Dr Fiorella use found the cumulative evidence to be
Belpoggi, Director of the Cesare Maltoni inconclusive, but indicated that cancers
Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini may have longer latency (i.e. greater
Institute, which had recently conducted than 15 years) and childhood use to be
separate research that reproduced the of concern. 14 In contrast, the French
findings of the NTP Study, also took CERENAT study stated that, “Consistent
issue with the ICNIRP—“We are with previous studies, we found an
scientists, our role is to produce solid increased risk in the heaviest users,
evidence for hazard and risk assessment. especially for gliomas.” 15 While these
Underestimating the evidence from studies emanate from natural scientists,
carcinogen bioassays and delays in two social scientists found that “that
regulation have already proven many mobile phone subscription rates are
times to have severe consequences, as positively and statistically significantly
in the case of asbestos, smoking and associated with death rates from brain
vinyl chloride.” 10 In their study, Dr cancer 15-20 years later. As a
Belpoggi and her colleagues found an falsification test, we find few positive
“increase in the incidence of tumors of associations between mobile phone
the brain and heart in RFR-exposed subscription rates and deaths from
Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are rectal, pancreatic, stomach, breast or
of the same histotype of those observed lung cancer or ischemic heart disease.” 16
in some epidemiological studies on cell
Commenting on the general issue of a
phone users.” 11 The NTP study also
rise in brain tumours, cancer
reported that DNA damage (strand
epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, argues
breaks) was significantly increased in the
that the risk of brain cancer in the US is
5low, 6 in every 100,000, compared to during these early life stages is a major
150 in every 100,000 for breast risk factor for cancer later in life.
cancer. 17 He therefore implies that the Because young people have many
cancer risk from RFR is overhyped, as expected years of life, the clinical
epidemiological data can be open to manifestations of cancers caused by
various interpretations. Whichever way carcinogens have more time in which to
one looks at it, the incidence of such develop during characteristically long
tumours is indeed low. But if recent latency periods.” 20 A recent study
studies are accurate, then this rate may demonstrated that in a child’s brain
more than double over a 20 year the hippocampus and hypothalamus
period11 or increase in line with mobile absorb 1.6–3.1 times the microwave
phone use,14 as RFR is now accepted as energy of an adult brain. The
either a causal or a contributory absorption rate is 2.5 times higher than
mechanism in the occurrence of brain an adult’s where a child’s cerebellum is
tumours and other cancers. However, concerned. The same study found that
what none of these studies take into the bone marrow in a child’s skull
account is that the number of RFR absorbs microwave radiation at a level
sources has increased dramatically 10 times greater than that of an adult.21
throughout the home, school and work In addition, a child’s eyes absorb higher
environments over the past 10 years, levels of microwave radiation than
with WiFi routers, 2-4G enabled tablets, adults. 22 If, as the latest scientific
the proliferation of WiFi enabled devices evidence indicates, low-level microwave
and wearables, and the number of radiation poses a health risk, and if
mobile phones per person. safety standards are outdated, then it is
logical to assume that children are at
There is also evidence that RFR from cell
significant risk from any device radiating
phones may be triggering breast cancer
microwave radiation.23
in young women who carry their devices
on or near their breasts.18 To compound Dr Christopher J. Portier, Associate
matters even further, one of the Director, National Institute of
significant findings of the NTP study was Environmental Health Sciences and
the presence of RFR promoted the Director, Office of Risk Assessment
growth of tumours caused by other Research, co-authored an article with Dr
carcinogens.1,8,10,11 The findings of the Wendy Leonard in Scientific American,
cumulative body of research are following the initial release of the NTP
objective, and particularly disturbing study findings in 2016. They conclude
where children are concerned. Rigorous that, “Cellphones probably cause cancer
experimental studies on laboratory rats if the exposure is close enough, long
have found that daily exposures to low- enough, and in sufficient magnitude. We
levels of microwave radiation, such as don’t yet know the risk for a given level
that emitted by WiFi devices, causes of exposure in humans. We need more
significant biological changes in a range data in this area, not only for cellphones,
of major organs such as the brains, but for bluetooth devices, wifi and all the
hearts, reproductive systems, and eyes other RF-EMF devices out there. Until
of the rats being studied.19 then, reduce your exposure whenever
possible.” 24
All this has profound implications for the
increasing numbers of children and Clearly, this is a complex matter, made
adolescents exposed to RFR on a daily even more so by the fact that there was
basis. And the risks to children are no hope of a paradigm change, until the
considerable: “Because cells are rapidly ‘smoking gun’ provided by the NTP study
dividing and organ systems are removed any doubt that RFR can act
developing during childhood and directly, via identified mechanisms, to
adolescence, exposure to carcinogens induce tumours in biological organisms
6Figure 1 Mechanisms and Pathways to Pathophysiological Effects (Reproduced from Pall
2018)
exposed to radiation levels within those and antioxidant enzymes are associated
permitted by existing standards and to with various human diseases including
which users are typically exposed. This various cancers. ROS are also implicated
should stimulate a reassessment of the in diabetes and neurodegenerative
risks in relation to all RFR use, diseases” 26 . Research on mobile phone
particularly children. “The level of proof RFR and WiFi pulsed microwave signals
required to justify action for health has also demonstrated that they produce
protection should be less than that elevated levels of reactive oxygen
required to constitute causality as a species (ROS) which in turn cause
scientific principle”.25 We are far beyond oxidative stress in cell. 27 , 28 , 29 Oxidative
that level of proof where RFR is stress is caused by an imbalance
concerned. between ROS and the counter effects of
antioxidants that help detoxify and repair
What are the Biological Mechanisms biological systems. Thus, the body
that Produce Ill-health in Children normally employs antioxidant defence
mechanisms to counter ROS and help
and Adults?
avoid diseases such as cancer, which are
While the direct effects of certain trigged by oxidative stress and its
carcinogens are widely acknowledged, tendency to cause strand breaks in a
research illustrates that “carcinogens cell’s DNA.
may also partly exert their effect by A raft of studies indicate that a chain of
generating reactive oxygen species biological mechanisms produces the
(ROS) during their metabolism. observed negative health outcomes in
Oxidative damage to cellular DNA can laboratory animals and humans. Martin
lead to mutations and may, therefore, Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry
play an important role in the initiation and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington
and progression of multistage State University points to the role of
carcinogenesis…Elevated levels of ROS voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC)
and down regulation of ROS scavengers
7activation, which is triggered by RFR lipids and DNA is at the root cause of
sources such as 2-4G and Wifi, as being many of the ill-effects of microwave RFR.
one of primary causal mechanisms. 30 In Most worrying in all of this is that
his review published in 2018, he cites scientists have found that the mutagenic
over 120 empirical research papers in effects on the DNA of living cells occurs
support of his thesis. There is, therefore, under low-levels of exposure to the
a cumulative body of evidence which pulsed microwave radiation found in
refutes the proposition that RFR has no most of these devices. The consequences
biological effects, other than local for children are obvious, given their
thermal effects on tissue. Professor greater exposure levels and susceptibility
Pall’s earlier 2013 review paper cites 22 to health ill-effects and also that their
research studies that specifically point to bodies are constantly growing and
the role played by VGCC activation. 31 developing.33, 34
The number of studies replicating
A recent study illustrates relatively low
experiments that corroborate this theory
level of exposure required to produce
has grown significantly, while none
adverse biological effects. Chauhan et
appear to refute it. The figure 1
al.8 published the results of their
illustrates the posited mechanisms,
experiment on Wistar rats in 2016. The
pathways and outcomes. A detailed
rats in this experiment were exposed to
discussion is beyond the scope of this
RFR at 25% of the normal level at the
paper, however, several important
human ear and 15% of the level when
mediating mechanisms and
carried for 2 hours per day for 35 days.
pathophysiological outcomes are now
Autopsies of the rats exposed to RFR
discussed.
revealed significantly high levels of ROS
A recent review of scientific studies in the livers, brains and spleens of the
concluded that relatively brief, regular, exposed animals. In addition, histological
and also long-term use of microwave changes were also found in brains,
devices resulted in negative impacts on livers, testes, kidneys and spleens. In
biological systems, especially the brain.32 line with a wealth of other similar
This review by Kesari et al. squarely studies, the researchers concluded that
highlights the role played by reactive the “results indicate possible implications
oxygen species (ROS) as a key of such exposure on human health.”
mechanism (generated by exposure to Earlier studies found that rat brains
microwaves) in producing serious exposed to RFR exhibited an increase in
negative effects in living organisms. single strand DNA breaks and
Exposure to ionizing radiation has been chromosomal damage in brain cells.
long known to disturb the balance Thus it is beyond doubt that the
between ROS and the antioxidants that substantial increase in ROS in living cells
neutralise them. Usually this imbalance under RFR at low signal strength could
results in a high probability that the be causing a broad spectrum of health
subject will develop cancers and other disorders and diseases, including cancer,
chronic conditions. A wealth of studies in humans and particularly in children.
now illustrate, however, that non- Certainly, recent studies have provided
ionizing radiation emitted from smart empirical evidence to support this
phones, cordless phones, WiFi, Bluetooth theory.
and other wireless technologies, such as
Another recently discovered mechanism
those powering the Internet of Things
found to affect the growth of
(IoT) can severely disturb this balance
glioblastoma multiforme tumours in
also, by amplifying ROS, suppressing
humans is the p53 protein. 35
antioxidants, and increasing oxidative
Glioblastoma are the most common and
stress. There is substantial evidence that
most malignant of the glial tumours
oxidative damage to cellular proteins,
found in the brain and central nervous
8system. These researchers studied 63 significant tumour-promoting effects.39 A
patients with this type of tumour and study by Lerchl et al. in 201540 replicated
found that patients that used “mobile the earlier study using higher numbers
phones for ≥3 hours a day show a of animals in both the control and
consistent pattern of increased risk for experimental groups. Lerchl et al.
the mutant type of p53 gene expression confirmed and extended the previous
in the peripheral zone of the findings. They report that numbers of
glioblastoma, and that this increase was tumours of the lungs and livers in
significantly correlated with shorter exposed animals in were significantly
overall survival time.” This is a higher than in the control groups. They
significant finding. More worrying is a also reported significantly elevated
recent study conducted on the Swedish lymphomas through RFR exposure. The
National Inpatient Register: “The main scientists hypothesized that
finding in this study was increasing rate cocarcinogenic effects may have been
of brain tumor of unknown type in the “caused by metabolic changes due to
central nervous system.” 36 The research exposure.” It is significant, and
being conducted by the ‘Hardell Group’ extremely worrying, that tumour-
in Sweden, which is responsible for this promoting effects were produced “at low
study, has consistently demonstrated a to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and
link between mobile phone use and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below
cancer. Two recent studies from the exposure limits for the users of mobile
group confirm the link between RFR and phones.” The authors conclude that their
cancers in humans. In the first, both “findings may help to understand the
mobile and cordless phones were repeatedly reported increased incidences
associated with an increased the risk of of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile
glioma, a type of brain tumour. 37 It phones.” The mechanisms presented in
found that the “First use of mobile or the previous section help explain why
cordless phone before the age of 20 and how RFR exposures induce the
gave higher OR [odds ratio] for glioma observed findings in these and other
than in later age groups.” Which studies.
indicates that children or teenagers are
at significant risk. In the second, Why are Existing Standards Unsafe?
researchers found that the rise in thyroid
cancers in Sweden was linked with The existing standards for mobile (2,3, &
increase in exposure to RF-EMF.38 To be 4G) and WiFi are considered unsafe. The
sure, epidemiological studies such as the US Federal Communications Commission
latter are akin to looking for a needle in (FCC) mandates that “The safe limit for a
a haystack, and are criticised by some as mobile phone user is an SAR of 1.6 watts
being flawed, however their findings per kg (1.6 W/kg), averaged over one
need to be viewed in a new light given gram of tissue, and compliance with this
the scientific evidence emerging from limit must be demonstrated before FCC
laboratory experiments such as the NTP approval is granted for marketing of a
study. phone in the United States.” SAR is the
Specific Absorption Rate. Expressed in
Evidence that Microwave RFR Watts (a unit of electrical power) per
Promotes the Development of kilogram of human tissue, SAR measures
of the rate at which RFR energy is
Existing Cancers absorbed by the human body. In the
testing procedures the FCC uses to
One important recent finding is that RFR
certify that cell phones don't exceed the
has cocarcinogenic effects. In research
1.6 W/kg SAR limit, the devices are
published in 2010, carcinogen-treated
tested 0.59 inches and 0.98 inches
mice exposed to RFR demonstrated
(1.5cm to 2.5cm) from the body. Hence,
9smartphone manufacturers provide these (www.bioinitiative.org), the World Health
guidelines buried in their safety Organization (WHO) and governmental
information. If users operate their agencies in many countries have not
devices within these limits, which most taken steps to warn of the health
do, they are in breach of the safe hazards resulting from exposures to
operating limits and are more at risk EMFs at low, non-thermal intensities, nor
from both thermal and non-thermal have they set exposure standards that
effects. To make matters worse, 75% of are adequately health protective.”
smartphones regularly exceed FCC
The industry safety standard for WiFi
safety limits as a recent correspondence
was established in 1996 by the FCC. It
between Washington DC law firm,
adopted the IEEE standard for safety
Swankin & Turner, who sent a letter to
levels with respect to human exposure to
the FCC indicates. The letter questioned
radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3
whether the agency adequately enforced
kHz to 300 GHz, of 1991, which was
its cell phone radiation exposure limits.41
based on that issued by the National
If a smartphone is on, but not being Council on Radiation Protection (NRCP)
used for calls, text, or to browse online, in 1986. This standard covers only the
it still communicates with cell phone thermal hazards from Radio Frequency
base towers to maintain internet access. Radiation (RFR). RFR is also known as
This allows app notifications, instant non-ionizing microwave radiation. There
message texts, updates, and so on. So is a long-standing belief among
your phone is never off. Hence, when physicists and electronics engineers that,
you carry it in your pockets or on a belt unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays,
wallet, it’s not being operated within the non-ionizing radiation such as RFR is not
safe distance and the phone powerful enough to cause damage to
manufacturer is not liable. Note that the human DNA. Non-ionizing microwave
safety limits for cell phones and Wifi radiation could not, therefore, according
focus on thermal effects only. Remember to that theory be a cause of cancer or
also that non-thermal effects have been other non-thermal biological effects in
observed at much lower SAR levels from humans. This theory has, however, been
individual devices and also cellular base falsified, as indicated above.
stations and WiFi router. 42 Russian
The hazards covered by the FCC
scientist Dr. Yuri Grigoriev, Chairman of
standard are based on the specific
the Russian National Committee on Non-
absorption dose-rate (SAR) that
ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP)
produces thermal effects in body tissue.
points out that “National and
As indicated SAR is typically measured in
international regulatory limits for
Watts/Kilogram. So, put simply, SAR
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure
estimates the amount of energy
from cell phones and cell towers are
absorbed by a human body or part
outdated.” 43 He argues that Western
thereof when exposed to an RFR signal.
standards are inadequate to protect
While accurate, it chiefly focuses on
human health, in contrast with those in
thermal effects of RF-EMF. The FCC
Russia, especially where the health of
guidelines are based on a 4 W/Kg
children is concerned. In Belpomme et
adverse level effect observed in
al. study42, whose authors include cancer
laboratory animals. This excerpt from
researchers, it is argued that “In spite of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR
a large body of evidence for human
47/2.1093) is instructive:
health hazards from non-ionizing EMFs
at intensities that do not cause “The SAR limits for general
measureable tissue heating, summarized population/uncontrolled exposure are
in an encyclopaedic fashion in the 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole
Bioinitiative Report body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of
101.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of certainly never envisaged children using
tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the these devices on a regular basis. Note
shape of a cube). Exceptions are the too that adults and children carry WiFi-
parts of the human body treated as enabled smartphones on their person,
extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, less than 1 cm from their bodies and well
ankles, and pinnae, where the peak within the 20 (8”) cm limit of safe
spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg, operation. This is also true of WiFi-
averaged over any 10 grams of tissue enabled WhatsApp and Skype calls.
(defined as a tissue volume in the shape However, today such devices are in
of a cube). Exposure may be averaged widespread daily use by children across
over a time period not to exceed 30 developed countries. Furthermore, given
minutes to determine compliance with the observable patterns of use, the 30-
general population/uncontrolled SAR minute maximum exposure is being
limits.” breached on a regular basis by both
adults and children. Given the scientific
Based on existing theories and research
evidence, it is troubling to think that
data, the FCC recognised the safety
children are carrying or operating WiFi
problems with WiFi and recommended
devices on or near their person,
that such devices are not operated less
breaching the safety guidelines set by
than 20 cm from the human body for 30
the FCC, and for periods much, much
minutes. However, as far back as 2002,
longer than 30 minutes.
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) stated that the “FCC’s exposure Opposing views come from the BigTech
guideline is considered protective of and telecommunications companies, who
effects arising from a thermal like the tobacco lobby before them, are
mechanism but not from all possible arguing that there is no danger in using
mechanisms. Therefore, the WiFi technology or mobile phones. This
generalisation by many that the view is based on the aforementioned
guidelines protect human beings from belief that non-ionizing radiation such as
harm by any or all mechanisms is not microwaves are not powerful enough to
justified”44. The EPA’s reservations were cause damage to human DNA. However,
justified, given research findings as Professor Martin Pall concludes
published over the past 15 years that “Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi
refute the theory that hazards were causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular
confined to thermal effects. damage, neuropsychiatric effects
including EEG changes, apoptosis,
cellular DNA damage, endocrine
changes, and calcium overload.”30
What do Insurance Companies and
Regulators and Telecoms Operators
have to say about the Risks?
In 2010 Lloyds of London 45 published a
paper on the emerging risks of RFR. At
the time it likened links between non-
ionizing radiation and cancer to that
When is laptop not a laptop? When it’s WiFi-
enabled. Such devices must be 20 cm or 8” from which exists between asbestos and
the body— an adult body, that is. cancer, indicating that time and more
research would establish a causal link. In
We might add that at the time, the FCC 2015, rumours spread across the web
never envisaged adults carrying WiFi that Lloyds of London had stopped
enabled devices on their person, and covering health risks associated with RFR
11devices. However, it appears that the “7. Our business may be impacted by
exclusion of RFR from insurance policies actual or perceived health risks
was issued by an individual underwriter, associated with the transmission of
CFC Underwriting Ltd to the effect that: radio waves from mobile telephones,
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion transmitters and associated
(Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance equipment. Risk: Concerns have been
Exclusion and is applied across the expressed that the electromagnetic
market as standard. The purpose of the signals emitted by mobile telephone
exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses handsets and base stations may pose
caused by continuous long-term non- health risks. We are not aware that such
ionising radiation exposure i.e. through health risks have been substantiated,
mobile phone usage.” It was reported however, in the event of a major
that this exclusion applied to insurance scientific finding supporting this view this
cover for architects and engineers in might result in prohibitive legislation
Canada, following health concerns being introduced by governments (or the
centering on a programme to install Wi- European Union), a major reduction in
Fi in all British Columbian schools mobile phone usage (especially by
without parents’ consent. Lloyd’s 2010 children), a requirement to move base
report predated the IARC’s decision in station sites, significant difficulty
2011 to classify RFR as a Class 2B renewing or acquiring site leases, and/or
carcinogen. As research on the health major litigation. An inadequate response
risks of RFR produces more empirical to electromagnetic fields (‘EMF’) issues
evidence, insurance companies will act may result in loss of confidence in the
accordingly. Indeed, occupational industry and Vodafone.”1
insurance for medical practitioners now
specifically excludes any medical Discussion
conditions that arise from exposure to
non-ionizing radiation such as RF-EMF, In a submission to the United Nations in
including that from phones and mobile 2015, over 200 scientists requested it to
devices. Indeed, expect a strong address “the emerging public health
response from the insurance industry as crisis” related to the use of RFR emitting
its actuaries evaluate the risks posed by devices.46 They urged the United Nations
long-term exposure to RFR in the weight Environmental Programme (UNEP) to
of recent scientific evidence. review current exposure standards and
to identify measures to substantially
Regulators, such as the Securities and lower human exposures to microwave
Exchange Commission, also recognise radiation. The scientists argued that
the economic impact of risks, as do existing “guidelines do not cover long-
mobile phone and internet services term exposure and low-intensity effects”
providers. Take, for example, that and are “insufficient to protect public
Vodafone and Verizon, among others, health.” They note the urgency in this,
now include, and make provision for in as children are more vulnerable to the
their financial reports, the risks of effects of RFR.
litigation in relation to the health effects
of products and services involving RFR, Microwave radiation is considered by
whether from smartphones or WiFi majority of informed scientists as an
routers. Clearly neither believes that the invisible source of potentially toxic
small print in the safety information
issued with RFR devices is sufficient.
Take, for example, the following excerpt 1
Vodafone Group PLC, Annual Report 2012.
from Vodafone Group PLC, Annual https://www.vodafone.com/content
Report. /annualreport/annual_report12/downloads/perform
ance_vodafone_ar2012_sections/principal_risk_fac
tors_and_uncertainties_vodafone_ar2012.pdf.
12pollution that scientific research in the levels of ROS and attenuated levels of
sciences has identified as being harmful anti-oxidants associated with exposure
to biological systems and, ultimately, to microwave radiation. However, the
human health and well-being. Think of a bright light shining on his face is also
smoke-filled bar of yore, where smokers affecting his developing eyes, which are
and non-smokers alike are subjected to more sensitive to those of an adult.
toxic carcinogens. Now, think of that
Vision issues aside, this light acts to
same bar in countries where smoking is
significantly attenuate melatonin
banned from such premises. However,
production in the brain. The first order
have we replaced one hazard with
effect here is interference with the
another, if one considers the RFR being
circadian rhythm and sleep disturbance.
emitted by the WiFi routers, and radio
The research literature on the effect that
units all of the smart devices in pubs,
LED screens have in suppressing
cafes, restaurants, homes, schools, and
melatonin levels is unequivocal.
the workplace in the age of the Internet
Cajochen et al. provide convincing
of Things (IoT), the scale of the dilemma
evidence of the effect that “A 5-h
that we have unthinkingly drifted into
evening exposure to a white LED backlit
becomes clear. That, is of course, if one
screen… elicited a significant suppression
accepts the scientific evidence.
of the evening rise in endogenous
All this is of concern to informed melatonin and subjective as well as
computer scientists and technologists, objective sleepiness, as indexed by a
who find the exposure to a multiplicity reduced incidence of slow eye
of, and close proximity to, WiFi signals movements and EEG low-frequency
problematic. Take, for example, Ajay activity (1–7 Hz) in frontal brain
Malik, SVP of Engineering and Products, regions.” 48 Sleep disruption is also
Network World, who has also called for problematic as “sleep mediates learning
the WiFi standard to be reviewed by the and memory processing” and is vital for
FCC. He argues that the “amount of memory “encoding, consolidation, and
radiation exposure today is over 100 reconsolidation, into the constellation of
times higher as we live in proximity to a additional processes that are critical for
very large number of actively efficient memory development.” 49
transmitting Wi-Fi Devices and Wi-Fi However, as melatonin is also one of the
Access Points/Routers.” 47 He therefore body’s most effective antioxidants and
raises questions on the cumulative ROS scavengers, it is putting him at
impact on adults and children of these particular risk of second-order effects. It
unplanned for levels of exposure that specifically increases the probability, low
often can go beyond SAR safety limits.
Of course, he is unaware of the non-
thermal health effects which are,
perhaps, of greater concern, as the
relevant mechanisms operate at lower
exposure levels and durations.
The child in the image below is not
operating his tablet device safely—that
is, he is not in compliance with existing
safety standards, inappropriate as they
may be. As a consequence, his vital
organs, eyes and brain are being
exposed to unacceptable and potentially
unsafe levels of microwave radiation.
Over time the cells in his body will What’s wrong with this picture?
develop oxidative stress, due to elevated
13Figure 2 RFR Mechanisms and Outcomes
that this may be, that at some point in routine problem solving 50 , 51 ,42. The
the future he may develop cancer as an implications for brain development in
adult. One must also consider the children is clear, as are the
remote probability that he may develop consequences for their immediate well-
cancers or other ill-effects conditions in being.
childhood. However, scientific
experiments have also demonstrated Conclusions
that exposure to WiFi radiation also
affects brain development in young rats As far back as 1973, a review and study
and their ability to learn and engage in by Russian scientists on the effects of
low-intensity RFR on experimental
14animals indicated clear evidence of devices, and their expose to RFR sources
effects on the brain and nervous system, should be minimized. This might seem
and also the heart and testes, of impractical in the digital world, but in our
subjects. 52 Historically, Russia has more real analogue world, children and
stringent safety standards than the teenagers are no longer permitted legal
West, whether it is the EU or US, when it access to cigarettes, nor is it socially
comes to RFR.43 The evidence provided acceptable for adults to smoke in their
by Russian scientists and their presence. Given the current scientific
contemporaries in the US and Europe evidence, the pathophysiological
should have given pause to the properties of RFR appear to be no
telecommunications industry and different than cigarette smoke or similar
regulators in relation to the carcinogens.
commericalisation and widespread use of
Thus, in light of the evidence, the
mobile telephony in the 1980s. However,
precautionary principle should be applied
in 2019 the cumulative body of scientific
and governments should implement
evidence should have governments and
policies that result in the removal of WiFi
regulators take immediate action to
routers and all WiFi devices from the
change policy and implement
classrooms of elementary/primary and
appropriate safety standards for digital
secondary/high schools. Just to remind
technologies, as it is children that are
the reader what the precautionary
most at risk.
principle means: "When an activity
Given the clear risks that RFR-based raises threats of harm to human health
technologies present, it is also vital for or the environment, precautionary
parents and educators to take immediate measures should be taken even if some
action on the use of microwave emitting cause and effect relationships are not
devices where children are concerned. As fully established scientifically.” 2 We are
there is overwhelming evidence that well beyond that point, as this paper
safety standards are woefully outdated, illustrates. The application of the
the action to be taken is clear. The precautionary principle is a statutory
precautionary principle should be applied requirement in some areas of law in the
and the use of all microwave RFR- European Union, as expressed in the
enabled devices, from WiFi-enabled Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus EU
tablets (and smartphones) to WiFi governments at least have a political and
routers, should be heavily curtailed or an ethical responsibility to act.
eliminated. The figure above summarizes
In the absence of appropriate
this paper’s findings and provides
government policy, educators need to
compelling reasons for why such action
reconsider the untrammeled use of WiFi
is necessary.
in schools and not employ iPads or
As indicated, Figure 2 summarises the tablets for use by children in class.
evidence of risk and indicates the role of Devices that use e-Ink, or similar types
specific mechanisms in producing the of electronic paper display, as opposed
various threats to human health and to LED screens, should be used in the
well-being. Each of the outcomes classroom and at home to access e-
identified are independent of each other; books/texts, but these should be
hence, the risk of some form of ill-health operated in airplane mode when reading.
to children due to RFR exposure is highly
Parents and guardians also need to act
probable.
and should consider the following
At the risk of repetition, there is only one
realistic course of action. Children and
adolescents should not be using 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_princi
smartphones, or WiFi-enabled tablet ple
15recommendations in order to exercise If children are using screen
their personal duty of care: device for games, they should be
Educate children and adolescents operated in airplane mode.
about the health risks of all smart Ensure WiFi routers are not in or
devices. near or directly beneath children’s
Restrict device time to 30 bedrooms and they should be
minutes for all RFR-enabled switched off at night. No RFR
devices, not just screen time. device, including some types of
baby monitors, should in in a
In respect of screen time, all LED child’s bedroom.
screen devices should have a Blue
Light Filter. Apps like F-Lux are Minimise the use in the home of
ideal here. This minimises all Internet of Things (IoT)
melatonin reduction in users. devices such as Smart Meters,
Virtual Assistants, Hive,
Smart phones have 2/3/4G, WiFi Chromecast, WiFi dongles, and so
and Bluetooth radio units all of on.
which are normally switched on.
These should be used only when There is also a clear onus on scientists
and practitioners in the computing and
required. In addition, the small
IT industry to act and ensure that the
print on Health and Safety
safety standards for all RFR and WiFi
information that comes with a
devices are reviewed in light of the
smartphone typically indicates recent scientific findings. To do
that they should NOT be carried otherwise would be irresponsible. There
nor operated less than 2.5 cm will be enormous resistance to change
from the body. from vested interests and the political
establishment. This has already
Remember that the WiFi Safety happened, with orchestrated campaigns
standards for ALL devices is that against natural scientists conducting
they must be operated 20 cm or independent research on the health
8” from the body and for no more implications of RFR, particularly in the
than 30 minutes. US. An excerpt from a recent article in
The Guardian newspaper summarises
o Given the risk handing a the type of response to be expected from
young child an active RFR industry with respect to microwave RFR
device, such as a and in particular the release of the
smartphone or an iPad, to findings of the NTP study. “Central to
hold in their car keeping the scientific argument going is
seat/pram, is for all making it appear that not all scientists
intents and purposes the agree. Towards that end, and again like
same as giving them a the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the
cigarette to smoke. wireless industry has “war-gamed”
science, as a Motorola internal memo in
If children or adolescents have 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science
access to smartphones and WiFi involves playing offence as well as
devices, the devices should not defence – funding studies friendly to the
be carried or operated on or near industry while attacking studies that
their person. raise questions; placing industry-friendly
experts on advisory bodies such as the
o Ear & microphones should
World Health Organisation and seeking
be used for all calls.
16to discredit scientists whose views differ About the Author
from the industry’s.”53
Professor Tom Butler is a social scientist
Returning to the quote at the beginning
at University College Cork. A former
of this paper by Professor Frentzel-
satellite and microwave communications
Beyme MD, we have, as the evidence
engineer and IT professional, he is more
adduced herein indicates, far exceeded
than familiar with the traditional safety
the “level of proof required to justify
issues relating to microwave RFR. His
action for health protection.” The theory
Pauline conversion from the engineering
that non-ionizing RFR exposure could
perspective on RFR thermal safety
not cause cancer has been refuted using
occurred through research engagements
the scientific method. It is ironic, in the
with the Chief Risk Officer of a global
era of neoconservatism, neoliberalism,
corporation who pointed out the
and the anti-environmental policies of
significant risks to children from the non-
necon cheerleader-in-chief Donald
thermal effects of RFR. These discussions
Trump, that the smoking gun should be
and related events in his personal life
provided by the National Toxicology
stimulated Professor Butler’s interest in
Program of the US Department of Health
this important topic.
and Human Services. This study, as
indicated above, is just the latest of In a research context, Professor Butler is
many to provide the “clear evidence” a former Government of Ireland
required for policy and social change. Research Fellow, Principal Investigator
(PI) of the Governance Risk and
The need for social change is this area is
Compliance Technology Centre (2013-
as important, and no less controversial,
2018), PI of the SmaRT and SamRT4Reg
than that required to respond to the
Commercialisation Fund Projects (2017-
challenge of global warming. However,
2019), and Co-PI of two Marie
the forces resisting change to the status
Skłodowska-Curie Career-FIT Fellowships
quo are considerable. Take for example
in Artificial Intelligence (2019-2022).
that “Not one major news organisation in
With over €8.5 million in research
the US or Europe reported [the] scientific
funding on the application of digital
news [published by the NTP]. But then,
technologies to date, he has 220
news coverage of mobile phone safety
publications and 11 inventions. Tom is a
has long reflected the outlook of the
member of the European Commission’s
wireless industry.”53 In order to combat
Expert Group on Regulatory Obstacles to
vested interests and protect children,
Financial Innovation (ROFIEG) in the
parents and grandparents, aunts and
area of FinTech, a member of the Global
uncles, need to act to change extant
RegTech Council, and a member of the
social perspectives on seemingly
Financial Industry Enterprise Data
harmless digital technologies that
Management Council (EDMC).
entertain and beguile, and which offer
affordances without apparent
consequences. That will be the challenge
References
for readers of this paper. To understand
that technology is not neutral—that it
has negative as well as positive
1
National Toxicology Programme (2018). Cell
consequences for users and society, and Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies.
that there is a dark side to the bright https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell
screen on which you may be reading this _phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.
article. pdf.
2
National Toxicology Programme (2018). High
Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation
Associated With Cancer in Male Rats,
Telephone Press Conference, 10/31/18, 2:00
17pm ET. https://www.nih.gov/news- or lifestyle factor, Journal of Environmental
events/news-releases/high-exposure-radio- and Public Health, vol. 2018, Article ID
frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male- 7910754.
14
rats. Röösli, M., Lagorio, S., Schoemaker, M. J.,
3
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1999). Schüz, J., & Feychting, M. (2019). Brain and
Nomination Letter to Coordinator of NTP Salivary Gland Tumors and Mobile Phone Use:
Chemical Nomination and Selection Evaluating the Evidence from Various
Committee. nomihttps://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ Epidemiological Study Designs. Annual review
ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/wirele of public health, 40.
15
ss051999_508.pdf . Coureau, G., Bouvier, G., Lebailly, P., Fabbro-
4
Vijayalaxmi & Obe, G., (2004). Controversial Peray, P., Gruber, A., Leffondre, K., ... &
cytogenetic observations in mammalian Baldi, I. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain
somatic cellsexposed to radiofrequency tumours in the CERENAT case-control study.
radiation, Radiat. Res. 162 (5), 481–96. Occup Environ Med, oemed-2013.
5 16
Morgan, L. L., Miller, A. B., Sasco, A., & Davis, Mialon, H. M., & Nesson, E. T. (2018). Mobile
D. L. (2015). Mobile phone radiation causes Phones and the Risk of Brain Cancer Mortality:
brain tumors and should be classified as a A Twenty-Five Year Cross-Country Analysis.
17
probable human carcinogen (2A). International Kabbat, G.(2017). Are brain cancer rates
journal of oncology, 46(5), 1865-1871. increasing? https://www.forbes.com/sites/
6
http://ehtrust.org/the-california-medical- geoffreykabat/ 2017/12/23/are-brain-cancer-
association-wireless-resolution/ rates-increasing-and-do-changes-relate-to-cell-
7
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf phone-use/#12df118e25b4
8 18
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/ West, J. G., Kapoor, N. S., Liao, S. Y., Chen, J.
cellphone-radiation-cancer.html W., Bailey, L., & Nagourney, R. A. (2013).
9
Melnick, R. L. (2019). Commentary on the utility Multifocal breast cancer in young women with
of the National Toxicology Program Study on prolonged contact between their breasts and
cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for their cellular phones. Case reports in medicine,
assessing human health risks despite 2013.
19
unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the Chauhan, P., Verma, H. N., Sisodia, R., &
findings of adverse health effects. Kesari, K. K. (2017). Microwave radiation
Environmental research, 168, 1-6. (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress: Whole-
10
https://www.ramazzini.org/comunicato/onde- body exposure effect on histopathology of
elettromagnetiche-listituto-ramazzini-risponde- Wistar rats. Electromagnetic Biology and
allicnirp/ Medicine, 36(1), 20-30.
11 20
Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., Carpenter, D. O., & Bushkin-Bedient, S. (2013).
De Angelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Exposure to chemicals and radiation during
Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I. & childhood and risk for cancer later in life.
Menghetti, I. (2018). Report of final results Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), S21-S29.
21
regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague- Christ, Andreas, Marie-Christine Gosselin, Maria
Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until Christopoulou, Sven Kühn, & Niels Kuster.
natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure
field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base of cell phone users. Physics in medicine and
station environmental emission. Environmental biology, 55(7): 1767.
22
research, 165, 496-503. Keshvari, J., Keshvari, R., & Lang, S. (2006).
12
Wyde, M. (2016). NTP toxicology and The effect of increase in dielectric values on
carcinogenicity studies of cell phone specific absorption rate (SAR) in eye and head
radiofrequency radiation. BioEM2016 tissues following 900, 1800 and 2450 MHz
Meeting, Ghent, Belgium. radio frequency (RF) exposure. Physics in
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cell Medicine and Biology, 51(6), 1463.
23
phone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf . Gandhi, O. P., Morgan, L. L., de Salles, A. A.,
13
Philips, A.. Henshaw, D., L Lamburn, G. & M. Han, Y. Y., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L.
O'Carroll, (2018). Brain tumours: rise in (2012). Exposure limits: the underestimation of
Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in
1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental
18You can also read
