The Council of Europe in a draft resolution wants WiFi networks and cell phone usage banned in schools. In, "The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment," they write:
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionizing frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
Now, the above argument isn't new. In my post last year, More On EMR/ELF Radiation, I noted the findings and arguments of Professor Martin Blank of Columbia University discussing the effects of EMR/ELF Radiation, primarily from power lines but it also included findings about ELF (extremely low frequency) and low level electromagnetic radiation (EMR) associated with cell phones. What is new is that the Council of Europe is focusing arguments made on other environmental impacts of EMR/ELF, namely in "Section 4, Effects on the environment: plants, insects, animals."
Read the draft resolution and you come away with seemingly radical changes that most likely will be either rejected or ignored at least by the US industry and consumers. Growth in this industry is fueled by mobility demands of not being tethered to use voice or data. The terms free radicals, DNA and specific absorption rates (SAR) are interrelated to the environmental arguments and safety concerns. Some U.S. media outlets are construing decreases in certain cancer rates as disproving any harmful effects, while the Council of Europe is presenting the precautionary principle instead. The precautionary principle defined by the 1998 Wingspread Conference is:
When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
I asked ADTRAN what would it mean if all or portions of the draft are adopted? Bob Locklear, Director of Business Development said, "If countries enact it, it could reduce range but that could be compensated for by increasing cell sites or WLAN APs. Providers would deploy more units closer together. Performance shouldn't suffer if additional equipment is deployed (it could actually increase due to less endpoints on each cell site or AP) and the equipment change could mostly be handled by a software load that reduces transmit power so there shouldn't be a re-design required."
It's not likely that more cell towers will get erected for compensating range-signal. It’s unlikely that mobility usage is going to decline soon. It's more likely that some may abandon smart phones and gravitate towards a tablet with a headset or hands-free device. For private, WiFi even if the resolutions were adopted in part or entirely it would simply mean a software effort to power down energy levels transmitted and just adding APs to expand coverage.
Outside the U.S., Science News reports that the Government of India takes issue with the findings of the World Health Organization (WHO) and that, "Indians may be more vulnerable to such radiation than Europeans because they live in a tropical climate and, on average, have a lower body fat content." Still, the 58-page report leaves a lot of questions and the same inconclusive evidence. Even when you ponder the back and forth arguments and consider the changing positions of the WHO and US cancer research, you begin to wonder. What's interesting is the science behind the technology and then the marketing. Americans have been taught that radiation at high levels (Nuclear) is scary, but then low level radiation stemming from x-rays, telecommunications and other sources is nothing to worry about when measured against the amount of radiation we receive from the sun. But if you think about those past arguments, then you may realize they are marketing messages to ease the adoption of technology. The classic example is that most people no longer use SPF 10 and they also know that SPF 75 doesn’t necessarily mean you get protection from the sun’s UVA rays. The point is that there is more than enough misinformation about radiation. Technology is sold with "read the fine print" as is found in your smart phone or cell phone owner's manuals that really do tell you what you’re not to do--yet nearly everyone does anyway.
I am just as reluctant as anyone in giving up use of my iPhone but I won't let my teenage daughter have one and my reasoning is simple: teenage brains are never fully developed (take that however you like) but in the biological argument and in the sense that we are disrupting nature and possibly worse ourselves--that concerns me. Maybe this is a wave of over concern created by a dizzying effect from the battling between sides, but the attention I think is now becoming widespread and if there is enough focus, maybe some answers will begin to materialize, and this obviously means "more research."
In the past year we experienced "climate-gate" and I can't help but wonder if we are headed for a new summit with the EMR/ELF issue being more controversial than the former. Both scientific and general population communities are at odds among the camps. The issues of human consumption and cellular service disrupting nature’s operating frequencies and the biological processes of humans and nature are challenged in both the environmental movement and cellular industry. In C-Span's "The Communicators" interview with Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, she addresses her study: "Is the human brain sensitive to the intensities of electromagnetic radiation that are deposited onto your brain when you are using a cell phone just for regular communications?" The study is then commented on by, Dr. Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania and then the author of "Disconnect" Devra Davis comments too. Then, the session ends with the comment: "The wireless industry was invited to participate and they chose not to." Watch the broadcast because it is interesting and as Dr. Volkow says, of course she still uses a cell phone, but only hands-free.
