Whether or not you believe in global warming, global cooling or global weather changes, they are happening ever moment of every day whether you believe in them having damaging effects or not.
Personally, I’m quite the sceptic over whether so-called man-made global warming is truly having any detrimental effect on the planet, or not, seeing as the planet has had hotter and cooler episodes long before humans industrialised, but hey - don’t ask me about it, talk to your favourite scientist and form your own opinion.
The fact remains that there is great scepticism from both sides over the position of the other, but it now appears that faith in Wi-Fi and the assumption there is no lasting damage caused to ubiquitous exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices is being seriously tested.
This is due to an international appeal by EMF scientists who have written to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Honorable Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization and to U.N. Member States.
The international appeal is from scientists calling for ‘Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure’.
The letter states it is written by scientists ‘engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.
‘These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).’
So, what is the scientific basis for the common concerns of these EMF scientists?
Well, we are told that ‘numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.’
The publications reportedly show that ‘effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.’
The scientists continue, stating: ‘these findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.’
Of course, asking for the UN or the WHO to get involved in things on a global scale to something as fundamental as the entire technological revolution of the planet is pushing us all towards a single UN-based world government with control over everything, whereupon the UN can put its extremely questionable ‘Agenda 21’ plan into action, so the scientists would do well to excuse me for being initially sceptical of their claims.
That does not, of course, mean that their claims should be dismissed. Science is all about taking all points of view and testing them to come to conclusions, not dismissing things out of hand, and certainly not any moronic ‘consensus’ views - it is actual scientific evidence that matters.
If that weren’t the case, we’d all still believe the consensus view, at the time at any rate, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, or that the Earth was flat.
These views are rightly seen as complete nonsense today, shining an extremely bright light at the incredible stupidity of taking a position based on ‘consensus’ rather than actual scientific findings and fact.
So, what do the EMF scientists have to say next?
Well, their next paragraph is entitled ‘Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines’.
Here we are told that ‘the various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.’
I can imagine the various national safety standards setting agencies would have something to say about that claim, but as we are all about openly listening to claims so they can be scientifically tested and validated, let us continue listening.
The scientists continue, stating: ‘The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)” (PDF Link).
‘These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards.
‘In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (PDF link).
‘ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.
The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) in 2002 and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 2011.
‘This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.’
The letter from the scientists continues:
‘Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields.
‘The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.’
I take this moment to point out that I once queried the safety of Bluetooth radiation to the CEO of Intel visiting at the time some years ago, who assured me and the journalists present that Bluetooth had been tested to be quite safe, but as previous Intel CEO Andy Grove once said: “only the paranoid survive”.
So, what else do the EMF scientists want?
Collectively, they say they ‘also request that:’
- children and pregnant women be protected;
- guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
- manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
- utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current;
- the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;
- medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
- governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers;
- media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and
- white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.
The scientists invite injuries, ‘including those from qualified scientists who request that their name be added to the Appeal, may be made by contacting Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at [email protected]’
The signatories to the appeal also note they have ‘signed as individuals, giving their professional affiliations, but this does not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the professional organisations they are affiliated with.’
So… is Wi-Fi a pervasive evil causing cancer in children and genetic change that might one day turn us all into mutant zombies on the third rock from the Sun, or is this all an electromagnetic storm in a wirelessly connected teacup?
Feel free to share your thoughts below. Slam me for my anti-global-warming views. But let us hope we are all not frying our bodies and brains with these frequencies of doom.
There are other articles out there claiming concern - here’s an article form ‘Safespace’ talking about Wi-Fi health dangers and radiation health effects - while seeking ‘EMF protection products’.
Here’s a list of ’10 shocking facts about the health dangers of Wi-Fi’ from GlobalHealingCenter.com.
There's also a very detailed article with audio and images from ElectroMagneticHealth.org which has a photo from a Danish schoolgirl experiment showing two lots of Cress seeds - two identical samples with the same water, temperature and sunshine. One with only 'half Wi-Fi exposure' looks like a healthy growth in the seeds, while the other sample which was placed next to two Wi-Fi routers looks terrible with far, far weaker growth.
That said, here’s an article from The Guardian ‘Wi-Fi: are there any health risks’ which ends by noting the author’s own feeling that ‘there are more important things to worry about than Wi-Fi’, such as thousands of people killed by alcohol-related deaths or tens of thousands killed or seriously injured on the road.
Still, if what the scientists above say is true, perhaps we have created a non-ionising electromagnetic Terminator that is tirelessly seeking us all out, seeing as all as John Connor, changing out DNA bit-by-bit and standing ready to, over the course of time, obliterate humanity and life out of existence - or at least until all Wi-Fi devices no longer get any power to them.
If an invisible wireless frequency is the Terminator… it will be the lamest super-villain yet to threaten humanity. It would also wipe itself out - no Wi-Fi or power for SkyNet to do its evil.
But if a villain it is, it must be vanquished with safer technology - we’ll just need to find what that safer technology is, rather than potentially sending humanity back into the pre-wireless stone ages.
I sincerely look forward to more research and more proactive action by equipment makers to make their devices as safe as possible in the first place!