Eckel 1

Brenna Eckel
CST300, Writing Lab
2/21/2017

Health Effects of the Wireless Revolution

Wireless devices have revolutionized the tech industry for decades. Devices such as cell

phones, tablets, and laptops have forever changed the way that people communicate with each

other, organize information, and seek entertainment. Consumers have an app available to suit

almost every need. In a very short time, society has become dependent on wireless devices to

manage daily activities. There is however, much debate over whether the convenience of a

wireless world comes at a cost to public health.

The two main sources for wireless connection are wireless area networks (WAN) and

cellular telephones. A wireless network is made up of a transmitter, such as a laptop, and a

receiver, or wireless router. The transmitting device sends signals to the wireless router using

radio frequencies (RF). Cellular telephones function in a similar way, however instead of

transmitting signals to a router, they transmit to cell phone towers. These transmissions are

created by a change in voltage which produces electromagnetic fields (EMF). It is EMFs that are

potentially dangerous. Some believe that these transmissions can lead to sickness, depression

and even cancer. Because these devices are relatively new, having gained most of their

popularity in the 90s, it is difficult to discern how, or if this technology effects health.

There are two major stakeholders, corporations providing wireless devices and services

as their commodity, the other are consumers. Corporations are interested in achieving the

highest profits that they can. They have an obligation to their investors to yield the highest

returns possible. Bigger returns mean a healthier company, which also has job market and

economic benefits. Consumers value the convenience of their wireless devices. They support
 Eckel 2

the wireless industry by purchasing the latest devices. Each release provides greater convenience

making use of faster services and greater data storage. Additionally, consumers value their

health and have an expectation that the devices they are purchasing are safe.

There are many companies that depend on wireless technology. The wireless industry

generates hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Supporting this industry are cell phone

tower companies, internet and cell phone service providers, and device manufacturers. Service

providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon contract with companies to install cell phone

towers for them, in hopes of claiming the most coverage for their customers. Many of them

provide internet services in addition to cell service. Corporations such as Apple and Samsung

compete to come out with the best smart phones, which can make calls and connect to WANs.

These corporations have made wireless technology their number one, and in some cases, only

commodity. In turn, consumers depend on the services and devices provided by these companies

to function in their daily lives. Between 2013 and 2015 wireless data use tripled to 9.6 trillion

mega bites, leading to three billion dollars in gross profit (Wireless Quick Facts, 2016).

Additionally, there are many software development companies creating apps for use on these

devices.

Because of the tremendous success of the wireless industry, companies that depend on it

have little interest in discovering that their commodity potentially threatens human health. Even

so, many have funded experiments testing the effects of RF and EMF transitions on living

animals. One study exposed chicken eggs to a magnetic field of 18 G at various intervals. The

results were that eggs exposed for longer than 60 minutes produced chicks that failed to thrive

after 22 days of life. They did not eat as much as the control chicks and were slower in gaining

weight. (Shafey, T. M., Aljumaah, R. S., Swillam, S. A., Al-mufarrej S.I., Al-abdullatif A.A., &
 Eckel 3

Ghannam, M. M., 2011). The average home has less than 0.06 mG, making 18 G is a relatively

conservative level to test. The conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to support any

concern at the level of exposure produced by wireless devices.

There are some researchers however, that claim to have evidence to the contrary. They

are working to discern how much EMF exposure is harmful, and to what extent. They are

motivated to inform the public of potential harm caused by EMF. Dr. Derva Davis has led many

studies on the effects of EMF caused by cell phones. One study analyzed hair follicles that had

been exposed to EMF from a cell phone for 15 minutes per day. In some cases, the findings

showed DNA damage (Davis, 2012). In another study, pregnant rats were exposed to cell phones

and the hippocampus of their fetuses were analyzed. The findings showed a reduction in cells.

From this data, Dr. Davis suspects that there is a link to autism (Davis, 2012). Soft tissue is more

at risk for developing abnormal cells than are bones. For this reason, children are at higher risk

than adults. Theories that children are at risk are supported by the increased rates of childhood

cancer. In 1975, before wireless networks and cell phones, there were 13 in 100,000 incidence of

childhood cancer. By 2005 it had increased to 17.8 in 100,000, which coincides with the

development of wireless technologies (Childhood Cancer, n.d.). In LaQuinta, CA a middle

school reported unusually high rates of cancer. Within 15 years 16 of the 137 employees became

ill with some form of the disease. When the facilitys EMF levels were tested, they exceeded the

meters ability to register (Segal, 2010). Cases like these seem to point to evidence linking EMF

exposure to illness. There continues to be a divide amongst researchers on the damaging effects

of EMF.

Given the debate over the harmful effects of EMF exposure, there are three options. The

first option is to impose regulation on corporations making them responsible for the risks
 Eckel 4

associated with EMF exposure. The second option is to allow corporations to continue to infuse

the economy by advancing wireless technology with no restraints. In lieu of banning wireless

technology, a third option is to create wireless free zones. Each of these options can be

supported by an ethical framework, however none are without compromises.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was put into place to protect consumers.

They have imposed standards for safety for microwave ovens, x-rays, and television radiation

but not for cell phones and other wireless devices (Radiation Emitting Products 2014). If the

FDA were to regulate safety standards for wireless devices, corporations would be held

accountable for producing safe products. In this scenario, the FDA would determine safe levels

of exposure as opposed to corporate funded studies making that determination. This option

assumes that studies concluding that risk exists are correct. Most studies have been done using

cell phones, so it is additionally assumed that devices such as tablets and laptops will have

similar results.

This solution is supported by Utilitarian ethical framework. Utilitarian ethics were first

proposed by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham compared pleasure and pain deeming that which creates

the most happiness to be most ethical. This scenario maximizes happiness by allowing

corporations to continue to provide their services to their customers. In addition, consumers

retain the use of the devices they have become so dependent on, and those who are concerned

about health risks would be educated on how to best protect themselves.

This option forces corporations to take responsibility for the products and services that

they provide. The problem with this scenario is that it is possible that taking precautions and

minimizing risk are not enough. Because the health effects have not been determined, those who

follow precautions could still be at risk. Wireless devices have not been around long enough to
 Eckel 5

gauge the overall impact it has had on health. On the other hand, education often inspires

invention. There are several companies that are already working to develop protection against

harmful EFT, such as LessEMF and Swiss Shield who have developed EMF blocking fabric.

People must have a way of protecting themselves. This option would inform consumers of risks

and allow themselves to take measures, such as reducing exposure to themselves and loved ones.

The second option, is to continue to allow companies to function as is. The advancement

of wireless devices has benefited the economy by increasing revenues and creating jobs. In 2016

the wireless industry accounted for 202k jobs (Wireless Quick Facts, 2016). This would be the

best option for corporations because they can continue to yield hefty revenues without being

slowed down by FDA regulation. Assuming studies like that of the chicken egg are correct, there

is no great harm in using wireless devices. Some scientists could be motivated by gaining

recognition or funding and, thus produce bias studies incriminating wireless devices. This could

explain discrepancies from study to study.

In this case, corporations are operating from Ethical Egotism framework. This

framework was developed by Thomas Hobbes. It is based on those looking out for their own

best interests. The theory expresses that sacrificing oneself and becoming dependent are harmful

and so it is in everyones best interest to be motivated by self-interest. Martyrs are motivated by

gaining sympathy from others, which would be considered unethical. The wireless industry has

had an enormously positive impact on the economy. In this case, what has been the best for the

corporation, has also benefited the public.

Companies promoting wireless technology provide many jobs and increase tax revenues

by selling products. With this solution, there would be no delay in customers getting the latest

technologies. Costs would be lower to consumers than if they had to absorb costs of testing.
 Eckel 6

However, if the effects of EMF exposure are not determined, they could have a detrimental effect

on the health of our population. Assuming current levels of exposure do not pose health risks,

does not imply that any amount or type of exposure will also be safe. There are other factors to

consider such as cumulative exposure from multiple devices and erratic frequencies.

The third option of designating wireless free zones, would provide those who felt that

they were at risk a place to go to remove themselves from exposure to wireless radiation. Green

Bank, Virginia is known as the quietest city. It is illegal to use wireless devices there. This law

was not put in place to protect residents, but to protect a satellite that listens for exploding

galaxies. The satellite is so sensitive that it can pick up the most subtle frequencies such as that

of a nearby microwave oven (Contreras & Drash, 2016). For the most part residence seem to be

happy to use landline telephones and Ethernet internet. Green Bank has proved that it is possible

for a town to function in the modern world wirelessly. According to Michael Gaynor, many who

feel they are hypersensitive to EMF are retreating there (Gaynor, 2015). There could be more

places like Green Bank banning wireless technology giving people an option to live wirelessly.

The ethical framework at play in this scenario is deontological ethics. This framework,

proposed by Emmanuel Kant is based on moral duty. Kant believed in the intrinsic moral value

of people. Providing people with a safe place to live is the right thing to do. Assuming that EMF

risks are real, those who are already sick, or are high risk would have a place to go. Even if the

risks were too small to be significant, people could have peace of mind. Additionally, Kants

theory is based on universal absolutes. There are no grey areas of compromise. Because EMF is

potentially harmful, it is immoral to expose people to it. To make this solution more realistic,

wireless free zones are proposed as opposed to repealing wifi and cell phones all together.
 Eckel 7

This proposal has many flaws. First, it would be difficult to discern which areas would

be free of wireless devices and how much area to cover. People have careers, family, and social

networks based on where they live. It would be unfair to ask someone to give up their wireless

devices after having become dependent on them. In addition, service providers would lose out

on investments they have made in cell phone towers, and individuals would lose out on

investments they have made in wireless devices. Corporations would certainly experience a loss,

which would be a blow to the economy. In addition, enforcing these areas would come at a cost,

likely to be passed on to consumers.

Given the fact that there is so much conflicting evidence, the FDA should regulate risks

of EMF transmissions, not only by individual devices but the collective pollution as well. The

claims for health damage are compelling enough that people should be informed of potential

risks. Risks should be concluded before exposing the public, and corporations should be

accountable for making sure that their products are safe. The fact that the world is saturated in

EMF exposure does not mean that consumers should become complacent. There is not enough

research to determine what long term effects of this exposure are having. Babies and children

are the most at risk, and are being born into a world polluted with harmful radiation. There is an

obligation to mitigate harm to future generations regardless of economic ramifications.

Many developers and manufacturers are targeting infants and children as their

demographic. Apps are being developed that use wireless devices as teaching aids, toys, and

even to stick under a babys pillow to generate sounds for them to sleep to. These toys can have

great developmental benefits by creating interactive learning experiences. However, producers

of these devices should take measures to safeguard their products. To do this they must know the

risks. Producers of these products should have a clear understanding of potential harm and
 Eckel 8

parents should be able to protect their children not only from their own devices but those used by

other people. Ethically speaking, people should know if they are exposing themselves or their

children to toxic pollutants.

Many believe in electronic sensitivity which they claim produces symptoms such as

dizziness, fatigue, headaches and digestive disorders. According to Andrew Goldsworthy three

percent of the population is electro-sensitive (Goldsworthy, 2007). Currently, there are no OSHA

standards in the workplace protecting those who may be sensitive. This leaves those who are

electro-sensitive with no protection since almost all workplaces are polluted with EMF activity

these days through wireless devices.

There are three important steps to take to address EMF radiation from wireless devices.

First, testing by unbiased parties such as the FDA. The FDA should regulate wireless device

safety in the same way that they do other appliances. Known hazards, as well as theoretical

hazards should be communicated to the public through clearly displayed warning labels.

Secondly, the people must be educated. Intuitively, people use cell phones by holding them up to

their face. Most people do not know that cell phone manufacturers advice against this and

suggest using headsets. Thirdly, protection needs to be made available to people. There are

many companies inventing ways to gauge and/or reduce EMF exposure. It is important that

these inventions are supported and funded to reduce costs, making solutions more available to

the public.

It is too soon to discern the effects of long term exposure. There is not enough

conclusive evidence at this time, which is why it is important that data on EMF exposure is

continually being collected. Dr. Davis worries that in another ten to twenty years, there will be

no control group left to test the effects of EMF exposure by wireless devices because all children
 Eckel 9

will have been born with high exposure rates (Davis, 2012). There will be no place left that is

not inundated with unnatural levels of EMF and it will be nearly impossible to discern harmful

effects.

Often, studies are bias based on who is funding them. Many of the studies concluding

that there is not harm have been funded by corporations within the wireless industry. This does

not necessarily mean that these companies are influencing how studies are being conducted,

however history should be considered. Cigarette smoking became popular in the 40s and 50s.

With it came a significant increase in the rates of lung cancer. Studies were conducted proving

that cigarette smoke was a carcinogen, however cigarette companies used propaganda to dismiss

the claims (Control, 2012). According to Tob Control (2012), in the sixties as few as one third of

doctors believed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. It is not out of the realm of

possibility that the same could happen with wireless devices. For this reason, it is important to

protect people. Society is fully emerged in a world of wireless devices, so it would be

impossible to stop the use of them. Most people do not read the fine print that comes along with

their new cell phone. If they do, they will see warning advising users to refrain from carrying the

devices close to soft tissue. It seems that cell phone companies will not confirm that there are

health risks associated with their products, however they are compelled to mitigate legal risk if

contrary evidence is released in the future.

Health effects should have been determined before the release of the first phone. In fact,

they may have been. A big problem creating inconsistencies in studies is that there are so many

unknowns. For example, Dr. Derva Davis claims that it is not the strength of the signal but, the

erratic nature that is so harmful (Davis, 2012). Most studies are conducted with a consistent

field. It is possible that manufacturers and providers did not anticipate the extent of saturation
 Eckel 10

and what the cumulative effect might be. Even so, it is unethical for any power to determine

what level of exposure to harm is acceptable for consumers and impose that harm upon them.

Most people would likely take their chances with wireless devices rather than give them up for a

potential health risk. It is expected in society today that everyone has, at the very least a cell

phone and most of the time a smart phone. In home landline telephones are nearly gone. It

would be impossible to convince everyone to give up their devices, which is why it is necessary

to take precautions to mitigate harm. With the release of 5th generation (5g) wireless technology

implementing regulations is more important than ever. The release of 5g technology promises to

transfer more data at faster speeds, increasing the amount of radiation exposure to people. 5g

will not be able to transmit as far as 4g, which will require more towers (Puzzanghera, 2016). It

is important that the risks associated with the upgraded technology be determined.

Solving for EMF pollution is not an easy task. Allowing corporations to advance

technology without limits and regulations, makes for a healthy economy by creating jobs and

competition within the industry. Imposing regulation on these companies would slow down the

release of devices to consumers and increase the costs associated with them. Additionally,

simply regulating the technology does not deal with the issue of people who are sensitive and

feel that they have become sick because of exposure. It is risky to advance a technology so

rapidly that has unknown health effects. It is possible that in several decades, it will be

concluded that EMF causes cancers and by that time we will be to saturated to turn back.

Despite the potential health risks in the future, corporations should be regulated and the

health effects of their devices determined conclusively. This solution provides the most inclusive

compromising. Corporations will need to take better care to protect consumers and consumers

will continue to benefit from the technology that they have become dependent on.
 Eckel 11

References

Childhood Cancer Incidents Overtime. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

Retrieved on February 13, 2017 from https://curesearch.org/Incidence-Rates-Over-Time

Contreras, Evelio and Drash, Wayne (2016). Americas Quietest Town Where Cell Phones are

banned. Cable News Network. Retreived on February 13, 2017 from

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07/us/quiet-town-american-story/

Control, Tob. (2012 March 21) The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link:

evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. 1History Department, Stanford

University. (2):87-91. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050338.

Davis, D. (2012 April 25). Cell Phone Dangers at National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences. Retrieved from

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/emf-safety-tips.aspx

Gaynor, Michael (2015 January). The Town Without Wifi. Washingtonian. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/01/04/the-town-without-wi-fi/

Goldsworthy, Andrew (2007 August). The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog. Mast Sanity.

Retrieved from http://www.mastsanity.org/health-52/research/164-the-dangers-of-

electromagnetic-smog.html

ITU EMF Guide. The International Telecomunicaitons Union. Retreived on 2/13/2017 from

http://emfguide.itu.int/emfguide.html

Moreland, J.P. (2009 April 17). Ethics Theories: Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics. CRI.

Retrieved from http://www.equip.org/article/ethics-theories-utilitarianism-vs-

deontological-ethics/

Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, August 8). Is 5g technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight
 Eckel 12

increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cell phone radiation. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-

snap-story.html

Radiation Emitting Products: Cell Phones (2014, June 4). U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-

EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertain

ment/CellPhones/default.htm

Repacholi, Michael H. (2001). Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Elsevier. Retrieved

from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.617.7150&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Shafey, T. M., Aljumaah, R. S., Swillam, S. A., Al-mufarrej S.I., Al-abdullatif A.A., and

Ghannam, M. M. (2011). Effects of short term exposure of eggs to magnetic field before

incubation on hatchability and post-hatch performance of meat chickens. Saudi Journal

of Biological Sciences, 18(4), 381386. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2011.06.004

What are electromagnetic fields? (2017) World Health Organization. Retreived from

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

Wireless Quick Facts (2016). CTIA Everything Wireless. Retrieved on 2/12/2017 from

http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts