Betreff:
Townsend Letter:
(July 2007) "Hazards of WiFi" or "WiFi Blues" |
Von: Paul Doyon |
Datum: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:36:36 +0900 |
|
Wireless broadband Internet access is all the rage.
The noise is drowning out concerns for this technology's risks.
Philadelphia,
the city of brotherly love is going to have it; many in San Francisco want it:
wireless broadband Internet access (WiFi)1 seems too good to be
true. At relatively low cost, anyone can get on the Internet anywhere in a
city. All the city needs to do is install a network of WiFi antennas. An
often-repeated argument in favor of citywide WiFi is that it will help close
the digital divide, since the poorer you are, the more limited your access to
the Internet and its wealth of information resources. Cities like Philadelphia
and San Francisco are actively trying to close the digital gap. One option is
WiFi.
Yet, in weighing the options, virtually nothing is heard about the potential health
risks. Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden of radio
frequency radiation (RFR). That burden, called electrosmog 2 by
some, consists of long-term, low-level exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic
radiation in the radio frequency and microwave range from familiar sources like
radio and TV broadcast signals, radar, and the ubiquitous cell phone.
Health Risks
Henry Lai, PhD, has been researching the biological and health effects of RFR
for 35 years. His research focuses on the effects of RFR in the range used by
cell phones and other wireless technologies. His laboratory at the University
of Washington in Seattle is the single remaining lab in the US that conducts
such research. Ten years ago, Dr. Lai's laboratory was one of four.
There is no funding in the United States for research of the biological and
health effects of RFR and electromagnetic fields (EMF). No foundation,
government agency, or corporation will lay down money to help clarify the
science behind concerns about WiFi, cell phones, and other wireless devices. Dr.
Lai keeps his lab going by doing cancer research, some of it concerning the use
of electromagnetic radiation to treat cancer.
In Europe, there are many well-funded projects in RFR research. Citizens are
more organized. Public figures have championed the issue. And the European
Union has a much greater public health orientation than the United States. These
days we have to rely on the Europeans for the science of wireless technology
health risks. 3
It was not always so. For example, in the early 1990s, the Cellular
Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) came up with $25 million for
research into the potential health effects of cell phones. The CTIA is the cell
phone industry's trade organization. Their intention was to lay concerns about
cell phones to rest. The Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program
administered the funds and research program. When the $25 million was spent,
the WTR final report submitted in 2000 recommended further study. The CTIA cut
a deal with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to spend another $1 million
to review further research. 4 The money is still there. The FDA has
been waiting since 1999 when the deal with CTIA was cut to spend the money. According
to the FDA website, "the FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future
to evaluate all completed, ongoing, and planned research, looking at health
effects associated with the use of wireless communication devices, and to
identify knowledge gaps that may warrant additional research." 5
Initially, the WTR found no cause for concern. But in 1995, Dr. Lai and his
colleague NP Singh, PhD, found that exposing the brain cells of rats to RFR at
a level similar to cell phones produced breaks in strands of DNA. Their discovery
was a turning point in the research and in the CTIA's enthusiasm for the
project. Dr. Lai and Dr. Singh had uncovered a mechanism that explained how RFR
exposure might cause health effects. 6
Since 1990, Dr. Lai has maintained a database of research on the effects of RFR
on humans, lab animals, and cell cultures. He has amassed over 300 studies
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes his
own research from the database. Of these studies, 56% show a biological or health
effect 7 from exposure to RFR. These effects include the following:
• cancer;8
• genetic effects, such as to DNA;9
• cellular and molecular effects, such as reduction in enzymes critical to
the central nervous system;10
• changes in electrophysiology, such as reduced activity between nerve cells;11
and
• physiological and behavioral changes, such as impairment of peripheral
vision.12
Biased Research?
An interesting thing happens when the studies from Dr. Lai's database are
placed in two stacks: one stack containing studies funded by the wireless
industry (30% of the studies), the other stack of independently funded studies
(70%). Of the studies that show a biological or health effect from wireless
RFR, 14% are industry-funded, while 86% are independently funded. Of studies
showing no effect, 49% are industry-funded, while 51% are independently funded.
To make the point another way, of industry-funded studies, only 27% found an
RFR effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. This
discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found an
effect on cancer, 11% were industry-funded; 47% were independently funded. Cellular
and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology
effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioral effects:
57% industry, 83% independent.
If Dr. Lai's research were included in the tally, the percent of studies
showing an effect from RFR would be even greater. But when Dr. Lai is asked
about these statistics, he often says that 50% of the studies show an effect. And
then he points out that 50% is a significant number, significant enough to
justify a precautionary approach that minimizes exposures.
The differences between the industry-funded stack of studies and the
independently funded stack suggest bias. Bias enters research through the way a
study is designed, the methods used in the study, how data is collected, and
how results are interpreted. It might be that some independently funded
researchers are biased because they are consumed by a burning passion to
eliminate RFR exposures or, even more sinister, destroy the wireless industry. They
might have consciously or unconsciously designed their studies, chosen methods,
collected data, and interpreted the results to show health effects from RFR. However,
the rewards for doing so are not great. Many researchers who advise precaution
regarding RFR have been ostracized, or their research funding has been slashed.
Careers have been stalled and, in some cases, terminated – hardly
circumstances that would encourage jumping on that particular bandwagon. 13
The rewards for producing industry-friendly results are obvious: funding,
professional recognition, a clear career path, and employment opportunities in
industry. This is not to say that these researchers are dishonest. It is to say
that rewards are more likely as a consequence of producing the
"right" answers. In other words, researchers typically aren't corrupted
into conducting biased research. More often they're already biased, and the
rewards flow to them as a consequence. 14
Within each group, whether industry- or independently funded, results don't
always agree – some studies show an effect, while others do not, regardless
of who did the funding. That difference suggests another kind of problem:
scientists don't know enough yet to conduct decisive experiments that can
produce something like a professional consensus regarding the biological and
health effects of wireless RFR. Many of the scientists who work in this field
and who believe that there's ample reason for concern will say that the science
is not yet conclusive. 15 This drives some activists crazy. Yet it
is a true statement about the state of the science.
We should not be surprised that this lack of conclusive science has led the
wireless industry to claim that cell phones and other wireless technologies are
safe. The FDA is with them, stating that "[t]he available scientific
evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using
wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are
absolutely safe." 16 This carefully constructed statement is
intended to reassure us. Yet Dr. Lai's database puts the lie to the first
sentence: it's simply false. The framework set up for us is that a technology
should be adopted, unless there's conclusive evidence that it does harm. Not
all regulatory agencies think this way.
The UK's equivalent to the FDA, the Health Protection Agency (HPA), has
declared a voluntary moratorium on marketing cell phones to children as a
precautionary measure.17 The moratorium has so far been observed by
the UK cell phone industry. The HPA opens its discussion of the health risks
from cell phones with the following statement:
There is a large body of scientific evidence relating to exposure to radio
waves, and there are thousands of published scientific papers covering studies
of exposed tissue samples (e.g., cells), animals, and people. It is not
difficult to find contradictory results in the literature, and an important
role of the HPA Radiological Protection Division (RPD) is to develop judgments
on the totality of the evidence in controversial areas of the science. 18
Unlike the FDA, the HPA points to contra-dictory science regarding cell phone
radiation. The reassurance is that they're paying attention, not that cell
phones very likely don't cause harm. The HPA goes on to cite the National
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which reviews the science and recommends
standards. The NRPB, and with it the HPA, explicitly adopt a precautionary
standard. With regard to children, the NRPB's 2004 report recommends that
"…in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation in the
Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains
appropriate as a precautionary measure." 19
In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) decided that
they would not permit cell phone antennas on firehouses. The decision was made
by resolu-tion at the IAFF's annual delegate assembly. The resolution directed
the IAFF to review the potential health risks from cell antennas. If the
science demonstrated a risk, then the union would oppose the use of fire
stations as sites for cell antennas until further science demonstrated that
cell antennas are safe. 20 The resolution was passed in August 2004.
In April 2005, the union's Health and Safety Department completed the review of
the science. They found more than ample evidence to conclude that the union
should oppose cell antennas on fire stations. The position paper included 49
references and a bibliography of 40 citations. 21 Based on that
evidence, the resolution cites a wide range of effects experienced by fire
fighters:
• slowed reaction times,
• lack of focus,
• lack of impulse control,
• severe headaches,
• anesthesia-like sleep,
• sleep deprivation,
• depression,
• tremors, and
• vertigo. 22
Three
things are worth noting about the substance of the resolution and the union's
official position. First, the firefighters were focused on their ability to do
their job. Second, firefighters were involuntarily exposed to a health risk. And
third, the firefighters oppose cell antennas on fire stations until they are
proven safe.
The decision that the firefighters faced – a decision we all face – is how
to evaluate the safety of wireless technologies and decide what level of
involuntary risk we are willing to take:23
• use it unless there's good
evidence that it's harmful,
• or don't use it until there's good evidence that it's safe.
So
consider this: 47% of independently funded studies found cancer effects, 69%
found effects on cell function, 77% found effects on electrical signaling in
the body, and 83% found physiological and behavioral effects. Suppose you have
several hundred marine biologists study your swimming pool. Forty-seven percent
(or 69% or 77% or 83%) of the biologists say you've got a shark in your pool. Would
you dive in? Would you let your kids dive in? 24
RFR Exposures
Citywide WiFi is only the latest RFR wireless technology to place us
involuntarily at risk. Cell phone networks are the best-known; these include
personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as the Blackberryâ„¢. Wireless networks
at home and at the office are newer than cell phones and are another RFR
exposure. Even if you don't have one, your neighbor might, and that will expose
you. Also relatively new are the Bluetooth technologies used for applications
such as hands-free telephone headsets that operate using RFR. The familiar
cordless phone is another RFR exposure that might put you at as much risk as a
cell phone. 25
What these technologies share is reciprocal receiving and transmitting of RFR
signals between an end-user device and antennas that link the device to a
network. There are three characteristics of these RFR signals that are believed
to contribute to the biological and health effects of wireless technologies:
signal strength, frequency, and modulation. 26
Citywide WiFi uses a signal strength similar to cell phones. Signal strength is
measured in watts, a standard unit of energy. Wireless networks for the home
and office have less signal strength (although they can be increased with
boosters), while Bluetooth devices and cordless phones have even less strength.
All these technologies use roughly the same frequency band: 0.3 to 3 GHz. GHz
stands for gigahertz. A hertz
is a standard measure of electromagnetic radiation created by sending an
alternating electrical current through an antenna that is one cycle per second.
A gigahertz is one billion cycles per second. The higher the GHz, the faster
the current alternates.
An alternative way of measuring RFR is in wavelength. Wavelengths have an exact
and inverse relationship to frequency: higher frequencies correspond to shorter
wavelengths. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with higher frequencies
and shorter wavelengths than RFR, with red light having a lower frequency and
longer wavelength than blue light.
Modulation refers to whether the signal comes at a constant frequency (as in AM
radio and analog cell phone systems) or in pulses (as in FM radio and digital
cell phones). All digital wireless technologies are pulsed.
Risk increases with signal strength. The frequencies used by wireless
technologies are to some extent "ideal" for affecting our bodies
because the wavelengths are at a human scale. Digital (pulsed) signals are of
greater risk than analog signals. 27
Short-term, high-intensity exposures to wireless RFR have received the most
research attention, in particular the acute affects of cell phones. Far fewer
studies have looked at long-term effects of cell phone use let alone the use of
other wireless devices. Even less-studied are the effects of the low-intensity,
persistent exposure to RFR from cell phone and WiFi antennas.
Electrohypersensiti
Much of the discussion about RFR health effects is framed as a concern for
people who are electrohypersensiti
• localized heat and tingling,
• dry upper respiratory tract and eye irritation,
• brain fog, headache, and nausea,
• swollen mucus membranes,
• muscle and joint pain,
• heart palpitations, and
• progressively severe sensitivity to light.
Critics
argue that electro-hypersensit
In The Hidden Disease,32 Finnish
journalist Gunni Nordström associates electrohypersensiti
Electrohypersensiti
Citywide WiFi adds to the existing burden of RFR.34 Just as burning
more fossil fuels adds to the level of smog, adding more RFR adds to the level
of electrosmog. You don't have to expose your home or your city to the
increased burden created by WiFi. There's a viable alternative: a wired
Internet access and network. The hype might make it seem less convenient and
more expensive. But what's a good night's sleep – or reducing your risk of
cancer – worth?
Notes
1. See the Wireless Philadelphia and San Francisco TechConnect websites:
Wireless Philadelphia accessed October 5, 2006 at http://www.wireless
2. The term is more familiar in Europe than in the US because of the greater
political attention paid to the issue by citizen groups and politicians who
support them. Beginning in Sweden in the 1980s, citizens suffering from
electrohypersensiti
3. Slesin, Louis. EMF Health News. Your Own Health And
Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes.
4. Carlo G, Schram M. Cell Phone: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An
Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage. New
York, NY: Carroll & Graf; 2001.
5. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Consumer Information on Wireless Phones. Available
at: http://www.fda.
6. The original Lai and Singh research was published in 1995 (Lai H, Singh NP. Acute
low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat
brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995. 16:
95-104.). The next year they published a paper showing even more alarming
effects on DNA: double DNA strand breaks (Lai H, Singh NP. DNA single- and
double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to low-level
radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Int J Radiat
Biol. 1996. 69: 513-21.). Subsequent research has confirmed these
findings and found that the breaks can persist in cell cultures through
multiple mitotic cycles. Gandhi, G. Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some
preliminary finding. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.
7. The phrase "biological or health effect" is common in this
literature. Some research is focused specifically on illness while other
research simply looks at effects on the organism which might have a downstream
health effect.
8. For example, Hardell L, Carlbert M, Hansson K, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of
two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the
risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.
9. For example, Diem E, et al. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone
radiation (1800mhz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed Gfsh-R17 rat
granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005. 583:
178-83 and Gandhi G. Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary
finding. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.
10. For example, Barteri M, Pala A, Rotella S. Structural and kinetic effects
of mobile phone microwaves on acetylcholinesteras
11. For example, Xu S, et al. Chronic exposure to Gsm 1800-Mhz microwaves
reduces excitatory synaptic activity in cultured hippocampal neurons.
12. Langer P, et al. Hands-free
mobile phone conversation impairs the peripheral visual system to an extent
comparable to an alcohol level of 4-5 G 100 Ml. Hum
Psychoparmacol. 2005. 20(1): 65-6.
13. A telling example is described in the November 2005 edition of Microwave News: Slesin, L. When enough is never enough:
a reproducible EMF effect at 12 Mg. Microwave News.
2005. 25(2): 1-2. Beginning in 1992, seven separate research projects have
demonstrated an effect on breast cancer cell metabolism from extremely low
electromagnetic radiation, intensities much lower than current standards and
well below intensities that are supposed to have any effect. The effect
disrupts cell signaling. Each report was ignored. The original researcher was,
as Louis Slesin describes it, "drummed out of the EMF profession." The
others have had funding cut and endured other harassments. An even more
chilling example is described in Gunni Nordström's The
Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by
Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. (New York: O Books. 2004.)
She describes how the once-promising career of Olle Johansson, MD, a leading
dermatological researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, has
been damaged. With over 400 peer-reviewed publications and major discoveries in
dermatology, Dr. Johansson has been refused promotion to full professorship,
denied research funding, and denied research facilities for his continued
interest in RFR health effects and for his advocacy for electrohypersensiti
14. The notorious example of how pharmaceutical companies shape medical
research and medical practice is described by two insiders: Marcia Angell, MD,
a former editor at the New England Journal of Medicine and
John Abramson, MD, a professor at the Harvard School of Medicine Angell,
Marcia. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They
Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House; 2004; and
Abramson, John. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. New York: Harper; 2005.
15. Dr. Lai's 2005 review article is a good example. It describes the many
issues in the field that remain unresolved: Lai H. Biological effects of
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In Encyclopedia
of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. G.L. Bowlin and G. Wnek:
Taylor & Francis Books; 2005.
16. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Do Wireless Phones Pose a Health Hazard? Available
at:
17. In April 1999, the UK's Ministry of Health formed the Independent Expert
Group on Mobile Phones to evaluate the safety of cell phones. Chaired by Sir
William Stewart, the commission of independent scientists (which became known
as the Stewart Group) reported in May 2000 that enough scientific evidence
existed to be concerned about health risks from "subtle effects on
biological functions, especially those of the brain." The Stewart Group
noted in particular that children would be more susceptible to harm. See the
Stewart Group's report: Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Chilton,
Oxfordshire, UK: National Radiological Protection Board 2000. Available at http://www.iegmp.
18. Health Protection Agency. Mobile Telephony and Health: Health Protection
Advice. Available at: http://www.hpa.
19. National Radiological Protection Board. Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK: National
Radiological Protection Board; 2004: 11.
20. International Association of Fire Fighters. International Association of
Fire Fighters, Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. 2005.
21. Ibid. pp. 13-38. Dr. Lai's database was used as a resource.
22. Ibid. p. 13.
23. For an excellent discussion of how to evaluate environmental risk, see Mary
O'Brien's Making Better Environmental Decisions: An
Alternative to Risk Assessment . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press;
2000.
24. Some might rightfully howl at this analogy. An "exposure" to a
shark is nothing like an exposure to RFR. No analogy is perfect. So consider
another. Hundreds of microbiologists test your pool water for cholera, and 47%
find it. Or hundreds of chemists test your pool water for a powerful toxin with
both short-term and long-term effects, something like mercury, and 47% find it
at various concentrations. Sharks are just so much more dramatic. And the
analogy makes the same point: how much agreement among scientists do you need
to be assured that something is safe?
25. Although the signal strength from cordless phones is far less than cell
phones, people tend to use them for longer periods of time: exposure per unit
time is less for the cordless phone, but the total exposure is equivalent to
that of a cell phone. A European study found equivalent cancer risks for cell
phone users and cordless phone users (Hardell L, Carlbert M and Mild KH. Pooled
analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones
and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.)
26. Lai H. Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering .
G.L. Bowlin and G. Wnek: Taylor & Francis Books, 2005.
27. Ibid.
28. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary
observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic Environments and Health in
Buildings. D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon Press; 2004: Chapter 20. Nordström
G. The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental
Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. New
York: O Books; 2004. and Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive. Available
at http://www.feb.
29. A mast cell is a type of immune cell that stores histamine crystals, which
are released during an allergic response. The skin of the electrohypersensiti
30. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary
observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic
Environments and Health in Buildings. D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon
Press; 2004: Chapter 20, Johansson O, et al. A case of extreme and general
cutaneous light sensitivity in combination with so-called 'screen dermatitis'
and 'electrosensitivity' – a successful rehabilitation after vitamin a
treatment – a case report. Journal of the Autralasian
College of Nutrition and Envrionmental Medicine. 1999; 18(1): 13-6.
31. Gangi S and Johansson O. A theoretical model based upon mast cells and
histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or
magnetic fields in humans. Medical Hypotheses.
2000; 54(4): 663-71.
32. Nordström G. The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of
Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions
. New York: O Books; 2004.
33. LaDou J. Occupational health in the semiconductor industry. In Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice
in the Global Electronics Industry .
34. The total burden of already existing electrosmog goes beyond send-receive
wireless technologies like WiFi and cell phones and includes pedestrian
technologies like radio and television broadcast signals. Research by Dr.
Johansson and his colleague Örjan Hallberg at the Karolinska Institute looked
at the incidence of cancer and other 20th Century illnesses in Europe and the
US and found a striking association between the increase in certain cancers
during the 20th Century and exposure to RFR as measured by radio and TV
broadcasts. Hallberg O, Johansson O. Cancer trends during the 20th century. Journal of the Autralasian College of Nutrition and
Environmental Medicine. 2002a; 21(1): 3-8; Hallberg O, Johansson O.
Melanoma incidence and frequency modulation (Fm) broadcasting. Archives of Environmental Health. 2002b; 57(1): 32-40;
Hallberg O, Johansson O. Fm broadcasting exposure time and malignant melanoma
incidence. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2005;
24: 1-8.
35. The Your Own Health And Fitness radio show (http://www.yourownh
--
Paul Raymond Doyon
MAT (TESOL), MA Advanced Japanese Studies, BA Psychology
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing"
.
__,_._,___