I once reviewed some evidence for low frequency electromagnetic radiation
and found that the statistics were so poor that one could not come up with
any evidence for harm. That particular flap has now been forgotten. Of
course this does not say anything about high frequency radiation. I think
it should be noted that high frequency radiation is all around us, and that
a cell phone subjects you to much higher levels than a laptop would. Notice
the citing of 400 articles. Essentially this is like saying that because
400 people agree their opinion becomes a fact. I would ask "what is the
quality of the articles". How many of them were published in refereed
journals? How many of the summaries just repeat other summaries and
articles?
There may be a small grain of truth in harmful effects from ambient EM
radiation, but I have not seen any serious evidence for it. I know that one
of the bigger hazards to children is hot dogs. However I have not heard of
any parent groups campaigning to ban them because of the choking hazard.
After skimming the cited evidence, there is certainly evidence for effects,
but the significance is hard to quantify. Some references showed harmful
effects at high intensity, but not at low intensity. A good example of an
ambiguous reference is number 6 which pointed out that no causal
relationship could be established from that one study. There seem to be
some decent studies which may point to possible harm. However, if this is
true then we must shut down all of the TV and radio transmitters, because
some of the studies implicated them. Incidentally some studies found an
increasing childhood leukemia, but not in more common cancers. This is very
strange because childhood leukemia is of such low incidence that it the
statistics on it are very low. I suspect that some researchers are not
doing the statistics right. The ELF flap was over childhood leukemia and
the statistical evidence was not there.
Of course the available negative articles were not in the summary. I would
like to see a good metastudy of the available evidence. With a variety of
effects which are just barely perceptible, a large scale study or metastudy
is needed to quantify the exact magnitude of the harm. Often when this is
done the evidence for harm statistically evaporates, or the amount of
possible harm is so low that it is less than the background.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
From a legal briefs notice by the National School Board Association:
Technology
A group of parents in Oak Park Elementary School District 97 (Ill.) has
filed a class action lawsuit in state court claiming that the wireless
network installed by the district is harmful to their children. The suit,
which legal experts believe is the first of its kind, claims that the
district installed the wireless local network in the classrooms despite a
"body of evidence" that finds exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic
radiation to be especially harmful to children. The plaintiffs' complaint
alleges that there are "more than 400 scientific articles, summaries, and
references outlining the health risks from low-intensity radio frequency
radiation exposure." The plaintiffs also accuse the district of refusing to
invite experts to explain the available research. The district, through
spokeswoman Gail Crantz, responded that it found the allegations "curious,"
because over a two-year period both sides had several experts testify and
the board concluded that wireless technologies are safe. While other school
districts that have installed wireless networks have found no harmful
effects, some experts in the field argue that parents' concerns should be
taken seriously. Bob Moore, executive director of information technology at
the Blue Valley Unified School District (Kan.), believes that "[s]chools
need to do their homework and be well informed about the implementation of
any new technology, Wi-Fi included." Oak Park is continuing to use its
wireless network, even though the plaintiffs requested the district shut it
down until the district can prove it poses no health or safety risk.