 In the past few years, the popularity of Wi-Fi has skyrocketed. With the accelerating rollout of WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access; a faster, longer-range wireless technology), and burgeoning high-speed technologies such as UWB (Ultra Wideband), some experts and many users are asking if all these wireless waves pose a danger to our health. The official jury is still out, but there is evidence on both sides that prudent individuals should consider.
 The Background
As we learn in school, very high frequency radio waves, such as X-rays, emit harmful radiation. In reality, waves at all portions of the radio (electromagnetic) spectrum emit radiation at varying levels. That’s because radiation is nothing more than energy, which all electromagnetic waves disseminate as they travel.
We are surrounded by sources of radiation. The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) lists 43 categories of radiation-emitting devices, including clothes dryers and TV receivers. Furthermore, decaying elements in the soil emit radiation and many everyday items (glass and fertilizer) emit low levels of radiation.
However, radiation intensity increases as wavelength decreases and frequency increases. Above the visible light spectrum at 768THz (terahertz; 1THz equals 1,000GHz), radiation has the ability to break down chemical and molecular bonds. (This can be a bad thing for humans improperly exposed to the radiation.) For this reason the FCC, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other government entities establish guidelines for exposure, protective shielding, and other safety issues relating to heavily radioactive equipment. | 
Consumer advocacy groups are particularly concerned about emanations from high-power antennas such as this one. |
Toxic Wireless?
Until now much of the dispute regarding EMF (electromagnetic field) pollution at the low end of the spectrum has been directed at cell phones, electrical power lines and stations, and microwave ovens. However, with the explosion of commercial wireless base stations (transmitters and receivers)—more than 1.4 million worldwide according to the World Health Organization—many entities are taking another look.
Under examination are base stations and antennas. Experts are not only looking at the high-powered equipment needed for long-distance wireless transmissions, but also the lower-powered ones at cafés, airports, or on desktops that expose us to low-level radiation for hours each day.
The curious may be wondering: If radio waves only cause molecular damage above 768THz, how can transmissions at less than 1/1,000 of that frequency be a concern? Radiation at levels much lower than 768THz can cause heating that results in cellular changes and potential damage. (Consider how a 2.45GHz microwave oven, which operates at about the same frequency as a wireless base station, can cook a chicken.)
Wireless proponents say the emanations from properly constructed and/or shielded equipment are not radioactive enough to cause heating and are therefore safe. (The exception would be a high-powered, commercial-grade base station, but even in this instance wireless experts say you would need to be very close to the source to experience any bodily heating.)
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, three factors affect radiation exposure risk: time, distance, and shielding (protection). The FCC and other governmental entities establish shielding and/or distance guidelines for cell phones, handhelds, base stations, and other wireless equipment designed to reduce our risk to acceptable levels. (To see where your cell phone rates, visit SarValues.com.)
However, EMF safety advocates have long asserted that the low-level radiation that bombards us every day can cause far worse symptoms than mere heating. They claim it disrupts the electrical signals in the brain, accelerates cell death rates, and causes an array of cardiac, reproductive, and neurological problems. Proponents of EMF pollution theories assert the aggregate danger from EMF emanations may be much graver than individual measurements for each source would suggest.
Prior to his death in 2003, Dr. Neil Cherry, a leading voice in the fight for stronger EMF controls, summarized the theory. According to Cherry, there is “very strong evidence, amounting to proof, that biological systems intrinsically use EMR [electromagnetic radiation] for body, organ, hormone, and cellular functions and regulation, and that extrinsic EMR interferes with these at extremely low-exposure levels.”
Mounting Evidence?
EMF pollution theorists point to studies released over the past decade indicating a link between EMF radiation and illness. In particular, three studies published earlier this year (one in the British Medical Journal, one in the International Journal of Oncology, and the third in the American Journal of Epidemiology) indicate a causal relationship between EMF radiation and cancer.
Recent headlines seem to support these assertions. In June, residents of the Swedish town of Götene inundated hospitals within hours of a WiMAX base station’s activation. Complaints ranged from headaches and blurry vision to breathing difficulties and two cases of heart arrhythmia. As soon as authorities deactivated the station, the problems ceased. In 2004 in Leicester (UK), two otherwise healthy (according to published reports) police officers died of throat cancer after using a handset, part of a new TETRA communications system that emits pulsed microwaves. (Many UK citizens are now protesting TETRA.)
One educational institution, Ontario’s Lakehead University, has decided the concerns are sufficient enough for caution. Back in January, Dr. Frederick Gilbert, president of the school, decided to delay implementation of a campus-wide wireless network. He is waiting, among other things, for the final results of the WHO’s International Electromagnetic Field Project. (Results are expected in 2007.) Since 1996, the multinational effort has been investigating the risks of EMF radiation in the 0 to 300GHz range.
Chicken Little?
Nevertheless, for every study or story that suggests increased risk, there is another that discounts it. In the studies we mentioned previously, some of the researchers suggested their results might have been slanted due to, among other things, faulty memories on the part of the subjects (ironically, another reputed symptom of EMF poisoning). Additionally, the WHO published a guidance document in May of this year that concluded, “Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.”
Most governmental entities (including the United States) are taking a cautious approach, even as they discount the possibility of a threat. They recommend consumers adopt a “prudent avoidance” policy (reduce your exposure to EMF radiation where possible) pending the results of the WHO study.
Take Action
For now, consumers must make their own decisions, sorting through a quagmire of conflicting information. To learn more about EMF and the official stance in the United States, visit the CDC’s NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emf). Unfortunately, you won’t find the results of any recent wireless studies there.
Dr. W. Gregory Lotz, a captain with the U.S. Public Health Service, confirms, “We haven’t done any studies of exposures from Wi-Fi or WiMAX at NIOSH.” Furthermore, the FCC has refused recent requests from the advocacy group EMR Network to “thoroughly investigate the consequences” to humans of continual exposure to low-power, ultra-high-frequency wireless transmissions. (In 2005, the EMR Network filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to compel the FCC to do so.)
Increasingly, health organizations (including governmental agencies in Sweden and the UK) recognize an affliction called electromagnetic hypersensitivity or EHS. For an unknown number of individuals (estimates vary wildly, from between .003% to 30% of the population having at least a minor affliction), exposure to radio waves induce headaches, digestive disorders, muscle and joint pain, memory loss, and other symptoms.
If you suspect you have EHS or want to be cautious, a number of companies offer tips or products to help reduce EMF exposure (BlockEMF.com is a broad-based, but not unbiased, resource). If not, caveat emptor. 
by Jennifer Farwell
|
Email This
Print This