Maybe I’m paranoid. Maybe the incessant humming is all in my head. Maybe my knowledge of telecommunication radiation is equivalent to archaic dial-up.
Or maybe our ubiquitous exposure to wireless signals is healthy, like a Big Mac, and we’re going to find out the hard way in the future.
I remember when I first approached my folks about smoking. They deflected my didactic assertion (smoking is bad, duh) that they should’ve known better and refrained from smoking when they were younger. They said back then it wasn’t known that smoking had such negative effects on the body yet. Seriously, Mom and Dad? You didn’t know inhaling smoke was bad for you? Did you have to piss in an electric socket to know that wasn’t good for the body too? (Only Dad said yes.)
I’m wary that wireless signals and the expansion of microwaves through cell phone towers and Internet routers will put us in the same situation we put our parents in. Perhaps one day my daughter will ask caustically, “Really, Pops, you didn’t know pressing an electronic gadget next to your ear for hours was bad for you? Did you have to go golfing in a lightning storm to learn that wasn’t smart too?”
Unfortunately, there’s no escaping it. Places without signals are getting few and far between. Even parks are beginning to be wired up.
Think about it, no matter where you’re reading this, you likely have a cell phone signal and/or Wi-Fi connection. Cue the “Can you hear me now?” dude. Um, yeah, where can’t I?
Certainly more studies are needed to shed light on potential effects. However, quantity of studies isn’t as essential as quality.
According to an alarming article in GQ earlier this year, “Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. [Biophysicist Henry] Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.”
Sound familiar?
Tobacco companies funded their own studies for years, before evidence became so overwhelmingly consistent (like gravity for example), that their current acknowledgement is laughably apologetic. Many cartons state flatly, “Smoking Kills.” Granted, they’re mandated by the Food and Drug Administration to print warnings, although word choice is discretionary.
I remember I was at a free public concert and a few smokers stopped directly in front of me. I asked them to move or temporarily quit smoking if they were going to intrude on my space. One guy cracked, “We’re all going to die man.”
“You first,” I replied instantly. (I’m very friendly.)
Thankfully now, many public venues prohibit smoking. Will the same be done to control wireless signals in the future? It’s too early to tell, but it’s going to take time and the stiff-arming of K Street before our obsession to be connected anywhere is controlled.
While it’s plausible I’m exaggerating the potential danger, it’s safe to say there are no studies showing people live longer or suffer from fewer tumors than before Wi-Fi/cell usage spread like Justin Bieber. My prediction is not whether or not the damage is real, it’s a matter of severity.
We’re the guinea pigs in this one.
Conor Shapiro is a graduate student in the School of International Service and a liberal columnist.
edpage@theeagleonline.com