RF Children – Living among the waves series (part 3)

Living among the Waves  – a multipart series focusing on the electromagnetic environment and what that means for our health and well being.

Living among the waves series will heighten your awareness of the invisible, but real, affects of radio frequency radiation (RF).  We pass through countless electromagnetic fields (EMF) daily and perceive nothing.  Does that mean RF has no effect on our bodies and the bodies of our children either born or developing?  Is there a causal link between RF, EMF and illness?  If we want to make lifestyle changes to limit exposure, what should those changes be?

To answer these questions and more, it behooves us to understand what Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are and how they have become so prevalent in our lives.  Perhaps our embracing of this suite of technologies was a bit hasty.  Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.

We exist in a society where breakthroughs are common place and advances in most fields occur with such rapidity that no individual can possibly entertain any hope of keeping track of them.  It’s also apparent that no matter the field in question, wireless communication has in some measure made itself indispensable.

In our collective effort to be the best, have the best, and invest in the best, we seem to have abandoned our ability to reason and discern.  As a consumer society, we are increasingly dependent upon marketers/influencers to define our needs and wants.  Their responsibility is to imbue a desire in our minds with sufficient repetition that it becomes second nature to assume the story is true.

The Svengalis of new technologies want us to accept without question their technology imperative: because something can technically be done, then it should be done.  To a large extent they have succeeded, and we don’t seem to possess the will to transcend the Svengali moment, courageously looking future in the eye and  opting for a moment of pause and perhaps thoughtful contemplation.  Our children bear the brunt of our unquenchable thirst, a thirst we satisfy without regard to the many effects observed both now and yet to be revealed in the future.

When new technologies are introduced we are compelled to implement them.  Consider cellphone frequency labels of 3G, 4G, 5G.  These labels describe enhancements to frequencies and data rates.  Adoption of new frequencies requires new hardware be designed and old hardware replaced.  If we want the new features provided by  new frequencies then we must acquire new transceivers (cell phones) that can make use of the new frequencies.

What is driving our decision to upgrade our cell phones? is it a set of features and the overarching health implications of ownership or the inability to acquire a replacement device with the older frequencies.  Stated more succinctly, am I making the conscious decision to adopt new features or are new frequencies imposed on me by manufacturers (Svengalis) of equipment.

The same situation plays itself out in the purchase of laptops, PDA’s, PC’s, access points, wireless network gear, and other wireless enabled products.  The decision to acquire technology items is less to do with health than to establish or maintain a work/home environment that is less costly to support and less complicated to implement.

Often when confronted with sudden changes or overwhelmingly complicated situations, the tendency is to defer, relegate, or follow another’s example from someone we trust.  When acquiring new technology it is very difficult to be the expert on the many descriptive elements found listed on packaging.  It is even more difficult to maintain effective levels of knowledge pertaining to the health implications of use.

Effective management in any organization, including the home, comes down to making straightforward decisions based on the best information available.  This relatively simple approach streamlines the decision-making process and limits any confusion.  Establishing guidelines is a natural outcome of the decision-making process.  The best available information is used in making a guideline.  The guideline is then available to be applied whenever it is needed.

The use of guidelines is nothing new for any parent of a child.  It is a time-honored truth that parents universally seem to have an innate ability to establish guidelines for safe conduct, within which their children live and learn.  This is played out by the parental indifference to yearning by children at the grocery store.  It is also seen when a guideline becomes the condition by which play can occur.  Take for example the parental guidance regarding skateboarding.  It’s okay to go skateboarding, but it is not okay to skateboard without a helmet and safety pads.

A parent has a much broader frame of reference  from which discerning judgments can be made.   However, Just having a broader frame of reference does not translate to having knowledge that can be used to set a safety guideline.  To establish home/work guidance regarding EMF some research is needed.  Continue reading and begin/continue building your knowledge base.

When considering wireless technologies, children are surrounded by transmitters and receivers from the time they are infants onward.  Only recently have efforts been made to perform research on the effects of Electromagnetic Fields  (EMF) on children.  What is becoming apparent is that wireless technologies when used at an early stage of life can interfere with social development, learning, socialization, and have a demonstrable health affect on a child that can have lifelong potentially irreversible adverse biological effects.

In correspondence from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Federal Trade Comission, the President of the academy articulated that “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation.”  [McInerny T.K.. Letter from President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP to the FCC. August 2013.]

For a decade or more the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have advised that children two and under have no screen time.  Sadly infant and toddler use of devices is skyrocketing.

According to PEW research Children’s engagement with electronic digital devices is significant.  As a child matures their use of electronic devices grows.  Of particular concern are the tablet and smartphone columns.  These columns show a surprisingly high number of  children with exposure to EMF at a very vulnerable age.

Regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) hold that low level EMF exposure is non tissue heating and therefore safe.  The difficulty with the regulatory stance is the singular focus on tissue heating.  Recent studies are demonstrating non-thermal tissue levels of EMF can cause adverse effects.  The list of effects include induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), cardiomyopathy, sperm damage, DNA damage, carcinogenecity, and neurological effects to include memory damage.

[I. Belyaev, C. Blackman, K. Chamberlin, et al. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health, 21 (1) (2022), p. 92]

Concern surrounding health effects of radiation have been present since the mid 1930’s when Marie Curie’s death was associated with prolonged exposure to radiation during her research.  More recently, member states of the European Union and the U.S. FCC have relied upon the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and others, for their guidance on occupational exposure from EMF  from all sources.

The standard upon which the IEEE bases their guidance is keyed to tissue thermal effects of EMF.  Generally speaking the IEEE position is, excessive heating is to be avoided.

According to other research-based organizations like the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Assessment Association (ORSAA), the IEEE guidance is lacking and only addressing a singular effect associated with EMF exposure.  ORSAA and others suggest the standards for evaluating wireless devices are not in keeping with the advancements in the supporting technologies.  Consequently, the FCC standards are not representative of standards necessary to adequately evaluate health effects of EMF and do not adequately protect the public from adverse health effects.

To set a standard for comparison and evaluation a reproducible effect had to be determined with regard to EMF.  The metric that was established was called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).  It became the guage by which a rate of electromagnetic energy absorption could be quantified.  The SAR is measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg).  The energy is measured over time at 6 minutes and 30 minute time frame.  The measurement is taken in a 1g or 10g volume placed within a 12-pound area containing homogenous fluid shaped as a human head.  A similar 220 pound plastic body is also used to represent the human torso.

A SAR of 1.6W/kg is the allowable head and torso absorption rate, whereas 4.0W/kg is permissible in the extremities (including the ear).

The measurement is taken in a 1g or 10g volume placed within a 12-pound area containing homogenous fluid shaped as a human head.  A similar 220 pound plastic body is also used to represent the human torso.

A SAR of 1.6W/kg is the allowable head and torso absorption rate, whereas 4.0W/kg is permissible in the extremities (including the ear).

The difficulties with this method of measurement are painfully apparent.  While we applaud the FCC and others for having and enforcing a standard, we also expect the FCC to remain current with regard to research and amend established standards to reflect the domestic and international peer reviewed research.

The one size fits all approach fails in many ways to address the variability in body mass present in the population.  Likewise, the constant salinity of the homogeneous test fluid does not adequately account for the varying densities of internal organic structures found within each body and the varying conductivity of different tissues.

The base assumption, upon which the SAR is based, is faulty.  The assumption is that harm to the body can only be caused by a heating effect to the brain or torso that causes a 1 degree Celsius rise.  Lower heating is safe and considered non-hazardous.

A complementary test method to the SAR is the Ambient Power Density (APD) method.  This measure uses watts per square meter as the metric.  Since a meter is a large area to measure the metric is reduced to a measurable milliwatts per square centimeter.  APD is used to measure the flow of electromagnetic waves in the sample size and it is typically a measurement taken at a distance from the source.

We can thank the NAVY and US ARMY for these measures of electromagnetic energy. In the late 1950’s there was a concern for radar operators.  Eye damage and epithelial tissue burns were evident, and the exposure limit was set at 10W/m.  This value became the standard and was adopted by the American Standard Association and the IEEE.  The measurement standard value has not changed in the past 70 years and is still in effect.

In 1996 the FCC established guidelines for allowable EMF RF for frequencies in the 300KHz – 100GHz range for the public.  These frequencies are inclusive of the widely known 3G and 5G cellphone frequency range labels.  Their guidelines were based on a 1986 report from the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurement (NCRP) – a professionally troubled organization and the IEEE.

It is concerning that the ICNIRP and the IEEE do not consider non-thermal effects of EMF RF as significantly relevant.  This is particularly troubling when considering other professional organizations like the ICBE-EMF and ORSAA  have widely differing views which run counter to the official guidance.

The battle against the FCC guidance position has included in excess of 11,000 pages of published scientific studies supporting and recommending the FCC strengthen their guidelines.  The FCC largely ignored the submitted science and in 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a judgement in Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC.

The court found the agency negligent in providing a rational record of review and had failed to show evidence of examination of studies on the greater vulnerability of children to include long term exposure impacts.

The international regulatory bodies have been listening, and the once mighty FCC has, to some extent, lost footing in RF emissions standards governance.   Other countries have established significantly lower emission thresholds for the public, and the use of wireless communications.

The most interesting takeaway from the lower emissions standards is the ability of the population to continue using wireless technology, albeit at significantly lower power levels.

The knowledge base is growing and it is becoming increasingly more difficult for agencies like the FCC to justify their positions regarding EMF strength and the public health.  To what extent politics play a role is poorly understood.  Yet, there must be industry influencers that are pushing back against change, wanting to keep power levels where they are.

Keep in mind that it is in industries’ best interest to keep power levels high.  Higher signal levels translates directly into better device performance and overall satisfaction.  There is a real cost to circuit redesign and re-certification can be a lengthy process.  Unfortunately, when trying to introduce lower power technology into the high power wireless device marketplace, the matter of one device overshadowing all lower power devices is real.  To overcome the dampening effect, the FCC would have to issue new guidance to force low power adoption in all wireless devices.

The action for all is simple and straightforward.  Continue to bring this matter to the forefront of policy-makers’ minds.  Do this by asking questions of employers regarding potential health effects of wireless technology.  Let your doctor know you are aware of the health effects and ask their opinion on the matter.  Have conversations with school leadership personnel.  If you are fortunate to have contact with governmental policy makers, speak with them and share your knowledge.

This topic is a hard one for all involved.  We all use the wireless technologies, and to some extent, have become dependent.  So, what to do personally as an action plan.

Fall back on the skateboard guidance paradigm.  It’s okay to skateboard, but it is not okay to do so without a helmet and pads.  It’s okay to use wireless devices, but it is not okay to continually keep wireless devices near your body.  The most important first step is to distance yourself from wireless devices. Act on those things over which you have a modicum of control.

Take a proactive approach to removing cell phones from sleeping areas, and out of pockets.  It is proximity to the originating signal that causes harm.  A meter is about as close as you want to be to a cell phone or other wireless device.

Separate yourself from your cellphone.  Start with keeping the cell phone away from your body as much as possible.

Look into wiring your house for ethernet.  Having a network installed in the house is not as difficult as it sounds.  A good installer can usually accomplish the task in a day and have you up and running in short order.

There are many actions you can take to push back against the wireless effect on your health and to live among the waves.  Be sure to read our next article to learn even more about cellphone radiation and your health.