Children and Wireless FAQ’s
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions
Children and Wireless Radiation
No studies show that microwave radiation exposure in children is safe or that continuous exposure from cell phones, cell towers, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, etc. is safe.
For most environmental hazards proof comes in the form of epidemiological studies of past conditions. As an example, how the WHO classified outdoor air pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen in September 2013 citing research indicating that in 2010 3.2 million deaths worldwide resulted from air pollution. When asked why it had taken so long to reach this conclusion, IARC director Dr. Christopher Wild said, “Often we’re looking at two, three or four decades once an exposure is introduced before there is sufficient impact on the burden of cancer in the population to be able to study this type of question.” Similar to many other carcinogens, undeniable proof may not be available for decades.
The EPA states, “More research is needed to clarify the question of safety.” No medical organization that we know of has declared this radiation safe.
Currently, the FCC is the agency that ensures compliance with radiofrequency exposure standards in this country. However, the FCC is not a medical nor science agency. Current standards have not been reviewed for over 18 years in the United States. EHT and many other experts in the field are calling the current standards outdated and inadequate to protect human health.
The CDC is not charged with monitoring this issue either. In fact they were recently briefed on the issue. Please see “Mobile Phone Use and Cancer Risk: Research on a Group 2B Carcinogen” Joel Moskowitz, Webinar for CDC Workgroup on Cancer Prevention (Oct 29, 2014)
If you set aside the industry-funded studies, the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows there is a significant problem. In addition to experimental research on cancer, there are over 1000 peer reviewed, published papers showing other harmful biological effects from microwave radiation exposure such as damage to sperm, pregnancy and nervous systems.
- They are out of date, having been set in 1993
- The guidelines were based solely on preventing thermal effects, i.e. heating. Yet numerous peer-reviewed, published studies report non-thermal effects indicating biological changes from exposure to non-thermal radiation levels.
- The guidelines do not account for exposure to multiple sources and only consider 30 minutes of exposure from one device at a time.
- The guidelines do not consider research showing that current cell phones can produce “hotspots” in the brains, and are, thus, not in fact non-thermal.
- The guidelines were based on an adult male body’s absorption of radiation. Children’s smaller bodies and brains were not considered in the metrics.
- The guidelines consider average exposures, not peak exposures. Research suggests our biology is affected by the erratic nature of the signal and that cells respond to short intense bursts of radiation even if the average over time seems low.
According to the EPA, “The FCC’s current exposure guidelines are thermally based and do not apply to chronic, non thermal exposure situations.” Wireless device use and Wi-Fi router radiation in the classroom is typically chronic, non-thermal radiation for the 1080 hours a child is in school each year.
In 2014, researchers and scientists from around the world made a Declaration that Canadian Guidelines (which are similar to US guidelines) are inadequate to protect citizens. This comes after dozens of such declarations over the years. Please see our briefing book for details on each of these declarations.
In February of 2014, the US Department of the Interior accused the US Federal government of employing outdated wireless radiation standards stating, “the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”
Significant research is making the point that such models do not adequately represent how the radiation penetrates young brains. In addition, research suggests that living brains can develop hot spots from the radiation. The plastic mannequin model does not account for such vulnerabilities and cannot measure this hot spot issue because the liquid is of a uniform absorbency unlike real brains comprised of 40 different densities of tissues.
- iPad: “… to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects…”
To read more about these fine print warnings please go to our web page detailing the safety warnings from baby monitors to cell phones to tablets.
- Cell phone companies also warn their stockholders. Here is a typical example of such a warning: “Unfavorable litigation or governmental investigation results could require us to pay significant amounts or lead to onerous operating procedures. We are subject to a number of lawsuits both in the United States and in foreign countries, including, at any particular time, claims relating to antitrust; patent infringement; wage and hour; personal injury; customer privacy violations; regulatory proceedings, and our advertising, sales and billing and collection practices. We also spend substantial resources complying with various government standards, which may entail related investigations and litigation. As we deploy newer technologies, especially in the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless handsets. We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results. Source: A T & T Annual Report 2014
Exposure is cumulative. Low doses add up over a lifetime. Scientists have never evaluated the total cumulative exposures of children in a classroom with numerous operating devices held on their laps or bodies, much less a school with dozens of classrooms with routers and personal devices in use. There is no government agency, federal or municipal, that currently has the mandate, ability or resources to measure the cumulative effects of wireless radiation from multiple sources at home, work or school with Wi-Fi, cell phones, tablets, home cordless phones.
When it comes to safety considerations, using cords or cables for ethernet connectivity with Wi-Fi features turned off and materials already downloaded to the device. This eliminates the risk from this microwave exposure.
You also can contact your internet provider, who can at no charge remotely turn down the signal strength. Often the internet provider can explain how you can control that signal strength yourself online. Some routers are set to pump out radiation strong enough to reach 100 meters in all directions, but this is usually not necessary in our homes. If you talk to your neighbors about turning their signal strength down and more often off, this is a win-win as it will reduce your and their wifi exposures and extend the battery life of your devices and yourself.
There is a long latency period for brain tumors – from 5 to as long as 50 years. Since cell phones have only been widely used in the US for two decades, the full increase in cancer rates is still unknown. Rates of autism, ADHD, diabetes, food allergies and immune diseases are skyrocketing, and it is understood that this increase cannot be due to genetics alone as the genome does not change in two decades. Environmental factors are increasingly thought to be behind this sharp rise. Like air pollution and chemical exposures, electromagnetic fields have been shown to increase stress on biological systems and impact the developing brain. Some research is pointing to a synergistic effect between toxic exposures such as lead and electromagnetic fields.
The 2011 IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen was based on the evidence from human studies (European Interphone group and Hardell group in Sweden) and animal studies. Since that evaluation, in 2014, a new epidemiological study – the French CERENAT study was published. This new study reached similar conclusions as Interphone and Hardell – long term avid use of cell phone increases a risk of developing brain cancer. This means we have three replications studies that all suggest cell phone radiation might increase a risk of brain cancer. These studies showing that over ten years use of cell phone at 30 minutes a day leads to an increased risk of brain cancer should be taken as a serious warning sign.
The Environmental Health Trust supports the appropriate use of technology in classrooms and applauds the creative use of digital resources. The use of technology and access to the internet does not require the constant exposure of children to microwave radiation. Cords and cables as wireline (non-wireless) connections are the safest option for internet access.