{"id":86799,"date":"2019-03-28T14:42:31","date_gmt":"2019-03-28T21:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=86799"},"modified":"2019-03-28T14:42:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-28T21:42:31","slug":"%ef%bb%bfdoes-increasing-use-of-cell-phone-and-wi-fi-radiation-pose-an-increasing-health-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2019\/03\/28\/%ef%bb%bfdoes-increasing-use-of-cell-phone-and-wi-fi-radiation-pose-an-increasing-health-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"\ufeffDoes increasing use of cell-phone and Wi-Fi radiation pose an increasing health risk?"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><em>Chandre Dharmawardana<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n<p>A 2016 talk by an engineer which may be\naccessed at:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI&amp;feature=youtu.be\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI&amp;feature=youtu.be<\/a>)\ngives a wake-up call\u201d about-the danger of cell-phone use and Wi-Fi radiation.\nIt is titled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed-youtube wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson | TEDxBerkeley\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/F0NEaPTu9oI?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson |\nTEDxBerkeley<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A Silicon-valley engineer turned\ntechnology-health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to\ntechnology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This video is&nbsp; once again making the e-mail rounds. Some of\nyou may have seen this before, and our discussion then. Such talks are found in\nthe internet all the time. Of course, it is better to be safe than sorry, and\nso one may wish to take some precautions if the risk is substantial. But is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At every stage of human existence, humans\nhad to judge the amount of risk they have to face, in order to exist and move\nforward. This was true for the hunter gatherers as well as the first people who\nlearnt how to tame fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Is the radiation from smart power meters,\ncell phones, home wif-fi etc.&nbsp; dangerous,\ncarcinogenic, or capable of causing nausea, sleeplessness etc, and incapacitate\nyou as stated in these reports?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The main-stream professional and scientific\norganizations do not support the view that there is any risk from Wi-Fi\nradiation. Of course, the frightened public will immediately point out to\nexamples of collusion between industry and scientific regulatory bodies. This\ncan be significant in the USA where Capitalism is King.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nevertheless, when the professional and academic\nassociations of a majority of countries say the same thing, I prefer to follow\nmain-stream science instead of claims made by small, seemingly very concerned\ngroups using anecdotal accounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So let us look at the science from the\nmain-stream point of view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The American Cancer Association, and other\nprofessional associations do not support the view that radiation from smart\nmeters or cell phones cause cancer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Smart Meters&nbsp; transmit the reading to the power company at\nfrequent intervals (e.g., every hour or in full real time). See, for example,\nthe ACA&#8217;s comments on smart meters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(https:\/\/www.cancer.org\/cancer\/cancer-causes\/radiation-exposure\/smart-meters.html)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The amount of radiation that we get from\nthe sun at all frequencies is a usually many&nbsp;\ntimes higher than what comes from these devices and from cell phones.\nThe sun radiates at low frequencies as well as at very high frequencies, and it\nis the very high frequencies (short wavelengths) that are most dangerous,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>compared to Wi-Fi and radio waves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>1.&nbsp;\nJohnson&#8217;s argument that the radiation density has substantially\nincreased because of Wi-Fi is not correct. Typical cell-phone or smart-meter\nradiation is at 2.4 GHz which is about 12.5 cm. The sun radiates at wavelengths\nof 100 nanometers to about 1 mm strongly, and beyond into radio frequencies as\nwell. So it is radiating in the Wi-Fi range as well. In fact, 52% of the sun&#8217;s\nradiant energy is in the near infra red and millimeter range.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A Wi-Fi wave of 12.5 cm is more than 10\nmillion times larger than a micron sized cell in the body or in the brain.\nThink of a boat in the ocean, and a wave which takes a very long time to swell\nup because its wavelength is a million times longer than the boat. The\nboat&nbsp; merely gets gently lifted up, and\nnothing happens. It is only if the wavelength is comparable to the boat and\nturbulent (i.e., many short wavelengths and eddies mixed up with long ones)\nthat the boat gets into trouble. So Wi-Fi radiation, which is largely\nmonochromatic (single wavelength) near 12.5 cm cannot latch onto the electric\ncircuits of the cell either due to size based electrodynamic effects, Q-cavity\neffects, or due to resonance effects unlike a cell phone which picks up\u201d the\nwave as it is constructed to have a circuit&nbsp;\nin resonance with the 12.5 radiation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One may imagine that if the wave were very\nstrong (i.e.,if&nbsp; it had a large\namplitude), as wold be the case near a Wi-Fi tower, then its effect would be\ncorrespondingly stronger. This is in fact not so, as Einstein showed in 1905.\nUnlike with ordinary water waves or sound waves, it is the quantum theory that\ncontrols the interaction of radiation with matter, and here<strong> it is the\nfrequency, and not the amplitude that matters<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2. The total number of cell phones and\nWi-Fi sources in the world is over 5 billion according to some estimates. Such\nradiation is in my view a negligible increment over the existing background.\nBut you can make your own estimates. Also,&nbsp;\nsuch cell phones have existed now for several decades. Scientists\nhaven&#8217;t still been able to pin point any cases (e.g., of brain cancer) exactly\nlinked to the illness and the presence of cell phone radiation \u2013 i.e., there is\nno evidence. <strong>There has been NO INCREASE in brain cancer while the amount of\nWi-Fi has increased exponentially. <\/strong>In fact the incidence of brain cancer in\nthe US has slightly decreased, over the years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>3. Of the 3 billion users, let us say we\nhave perhaps a some thousands of&nbsp; people\nwho complain of nausea, inability to sleep etc., as stated by this engineer\nJeromy Johnson. He refers to a paper by an Australian Doctor&nbsp; Frederica Lamech published in 2014 in a\nfringe journal known as &#8220;<em>Alternative therapies<\/em>&#8220;. The report is\nanecdotal, and does not compare a group of patients with a control group. There\nare many such reports, published in predatory\u201d journals which have no\nscientific standing, and reveal&nbsp; poor\n&#8220;experiments&#8221; that are simply not up to scientific standards. We have\nthe same problem in many environmental studies. A most notorious case is that\nof a Sri Lankan Psychic Lady from kelaniya publishing a paper with&nbsp; academics from the Rajarata University,\nclaiming that kidney disease in the Rajarata is caused by arsenic acting\ntogether with residues of the&nbsp; herbicide <em>glyphosate<\/em>\nclaimed to present in the hard water of the region.&nbsp; No evidence was presented, but a hypothesis\u201d\nwas published in a predatory journal. The&nbsp;\njournal&nbsp; had no connection with a\nlearned society or professional body, but it is maintained by a Chinese\nbusinessman who publishes what is&nbsp; sent\nto the journal as long as you pay a page charge, although there may even be a\npretense of peer review\u201d.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Do you know of ANYONE who has faced the\nconditions described by Engineer Johnson that you can be ascribed to the use of\na cell phone? Most people&nbsp; don&#8217;t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, let us we assume that there is\nactually a problem, and that 5,000 such people have been definitively\nidentified, and that there are 5 billion sources of Wi-Fi radiation in the\nworld. Then we have&nbsp; 5,000\/(5 billion) =\n5\/5000,000,000 gives us one chance in a million that this is probably going to\naffect us within the next decade. There is a much bigger risk from second hand\nsmoke, and an even bigger risk from fumes from motor vehicles, or falling in\nyour bath tub. The risk for getting hit in the street by a car and dying is\nabout 30 times higher (for New York, and much higher in Colombo or Cairo). Ten\ntimes more kids are killed in bath tub accidents in the US alone, compared to\nthe 5000 that we assumed here. That figure may be contested. If so, any one is\nfree to use their own figures and make the risk calculation, and do it in a\nmore sophisticated way using advanced notions of probability distributions etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>4. So, even if the fringe science reports\nare not up to standard, it is important to check if there is a danger, by\ncarrying out good experiments with double-blind controls. The WHO has sponsored\nor carried out several such studies on the effect of cell phone radiation. In\n2015, the European-Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly\nIdentified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiological studies on\ncell phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an\nincreased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cell Phones and Cancer Risk. See:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(https:\/\/www.cancer.gov\/about-cancer\/causes-prevention\/risk\/radiation\/cell-phones-fact-sheet)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is a WHO fact sheet that outlines the\navailable evidence regarding use of cellular\/mobile telephones and cancer risk,\nbut does not indicate a definite risk. And yet this engineer seems to say that\nthe WHO arrived at the opposite conclusion. So what he says is, in my\nview,&nbsp; incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>5. The engineer Jeromy Johnson says that\nour body is electric, and that cells communicate by electric signals, and so\nthis some how makes wi-fi dangerous. This is a truly naive argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cells communicate using chemicals at the\nsynapses of the neurons. The chemicals shoot across the synaptic gap when the\ntiny currents in neuron circuits exceed certain thresholds. Unless the\nthresholds are exceeded, nothing happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We can follow all the electric signals in\nthe body using ECG, EEG and other such devices. Modern fitness trackers,\nwristbands, optical heart-rate monitors, photo-plethysmography devices etc are\nnow quite commonplace. More sophisticated PET and brain NMR are also now\navailable to clinical researchers. In-body telemetry, as attempted in\nusing&nbsp; sensors which are a mere one\nmillimetre in size (e.g., those&nbsp; named\n&#8220;neural dust&#8221;), may also be used to monitor organs in real-time, as\nwell as their being using to stimulate nerves and muscles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>No one has seen any effects on these bodily\nelectric signals, PET or NMR signals being affected when the cell phone rings.\nThere is no justification for calling for a ban claiming a precautionary\nprinciple\u201d. In fact the correct use of the precautionary principle is to not to\nban the product, but to take some simple precautions to minimize exposure if\nyou have worries about the Wi-Fi radiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In my view,&nbsp;&nbsp; one should wait for reliable evidence, since\nthe current estimated risk is about 1 parts in a million,&nbsp; instead of acting in fear, like the animals\nin the Dadabba Jataka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Chandre Dharmawardana<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>[The author is a professor of Physics at\nthe University of Montreal and a Principal Research Scientist&nbsp; in the Quantum Theory group of the National\nResearch Council of Canada.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chandre Dharmawardana A 2016 talk by an engineer which may be accessed at: (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI&amp;feature=youtu.be) gives a wake-up call\u201d about-the danger of cell-phone use and Wi-Fi radiation. It is titled: Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson | TEDxBerkeley A Silicon-valley engineer turned technology-health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to technology. This video is&nbsp; once again [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chandre-dharmawardana"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}