http://www.care2.com/greenliving/better-safe-than-sorry.html
Better Safe Than Sorry?
I once had an editor (not a Care2 editor) chide me for wanting to write about electromagnetic fields and how to avoid them. In a holier-than-thou tone of voice, he said that they don’t write about controversial health topics until the science about the health impact is clearly resolved.
Well, hello. What do you think? Was he right?
We live in a business culture where manufacturers can put toxic chemicals on the market–such as pesticides and solvents made of petroleum distillates–until they are proven unsafe. Only then are they removed.
Isn’t the editor buying into the existing system to wait until the proof is in the toxic pudding?
My approach is to write about any product that has some health concern flags raised so that we, consumers who care about our health and the health of our families, can learn enough to take a precautionary approach. An example would be with food dyes, which are coming off the market one by one as they are shown to be neurotoxic and carcinogenic. Why not be cautious and skip food dyes with your kids until the expected outcome comes to pass and they all are removed? My daughter survived with cake frosting made of blue from blueberry juice and red from raspberries. And she ingested antioxidants to boot.
Regarding the electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a poll taken in the early 90s noted that EMFs have garnered enough fear to rank them as the number one health fear in the United States. Wouldn’t you rather know some good news about how easy it is to live away from them (while we wait to find out if they are killing us or not) than to hear nothing? For example, it is just as easy to move your bed away from the wall it shares with the refrigerator in the kitchen on the other side. Just 3 to 6 feet away from such an appliance and the fields drop off considerably. Why not rest easy knowing that if EMFs are shown to cause leukemia, you’ve avoided them?
I’d like to know what you think about the editor’s decision to axe the story about easy ways to reduce your exposure to EMFs. And yes, I would have been careful to say that the jury is out about just how sick they may make us.
related stories
-
(3 comments)
-
(1 comment)
-
Robyn
Melissa
Deepak
Eric
Dave
Dr. Brent
Isha
Susan
Delia
Michelle
Wendy
Megan
Hilary
Ann
Judi
Ronnie
Kelly
Lily
Terri
Betsy
Cait
Andrew
Jana
Annie B.
Veronica
23 comments
add your comment »Of course, polls also report that a majority does not believe in Darwin's ideas of evolution, and we can add beliefs in extraterrestrial kidnappings and paranormal phenomena. Shouldn't your readers, then, also be warned about these potential health threats, even if "Science" refutes them. Why, after all, this is the same public that frets over elctromagentic fields.
You have a responsibility to figure out what the line is between responsible reporting of threats and any kind of notion, public or otherwise, that could end up, at its worst but realistic extreme, inducing mass paranoia.
Don't back up your position on convenient public polls while ignoring the public positions that might be inconvenient to your position.
For the record, I am not in the electric business, and I share your disgust at corporate greed and preying on our health very often with the complicity of scientists and government health officials. However, I am also a sociology and cultural studies professor who is as skeptical of "statistical evidence" (like public polls) as you are of editorial policies in rival publications.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
View the US Congressional Hearing on Cell Phone Health Effects
FYI -
To view the hearing live on-line click on the link below. At the time of the hearing - 11:00 AM Thursday Sept. 25, 2008 - the title of the hearing - Tumors and Cell Phones Use: What the Science Says - will be in blue, and clicking on it will take you to the live feed of the hearing. After the hearing a recording of it can be seen on line by clicking on "Recent Hearings and Meetings" and clicking on this same title.
US Congressional Hearing on Cell Phone Health Effects
What: US Congressional hearing on Cell Phone Health Effects
Convened by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
When: Thursday September 25, 2008
11:00 AM This hour could change. Starting Monday, Sept. 22, check at : http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/schedule.asp
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
check out the website: emfblues.com
Yes, please do cover this topic. Other countries are way ahead of us on this.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
It is "satellite phones", not cell phones which were purported to contribute to brain cancers.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Judy,
Do you happen to know what the name of this little box is? I'd like to read about it myself.
I have to say I'm skeptical that this little box isn't a hoax / medical snake oil. I'm a scientist by profession, and I know of no way to block EMR with a "little box", no matter what might be inside of it. The only way I know of to block EMR is a Faraday cage, which you would have to live inside of.
I'm not saying I don't believe it made you feel better, or even for sure that device is a hoax. But I am highly skeptical and would like to look into myself. Can you tell me the name of it or who makes it or anything?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
As a person who was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Immune Deficiency Syndrome (CFIDS) some years ago, I participated in many test studies. One involved carrying around a small box to be within 3 feet of my body at all times which eliminated electromagnetic radiation in that 3 foot zone. After a specified period of time, we were individually tested on memory, recall, counting by intervals etc. and given a numeric score. We were then given another box that looked the same and repeated the process. We went through four different boxes. On the fourth one I was acutely aware that my memory, recall and all other parameters being tracked was amazingly and very significantly improved. As it turned out, the fourth box was actually eliminating the EMR while the first three were a placebo we were not told about, so speaking from personal experience, I can assure you at the very least it does significantly affect your ability to concentrate and focus. It makes sense to avoid it for that reason alone, not to mention that if it is proven to have much more serious effects it may be too late to reverse these effects. I might add that professional tennis and golf players had been using these devices long before the test to improve their concentration when they were to compete. And on a happy note, these $600.00 devices were given to each participant to keep by t The company testing them, lucky us! It works! - Judy, RI
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
If there have been thousands of studies that show how dangerous RF exposure is, then why can't you reference even one of them?
There are over 600 million cell phones in use in the world now. 600 million. But have dignoses of primary brain tumors gone through the roof? No, They haven't. Cell phones have been in use long enough now that if the RF radiation from them really were "so harmful" we would be seeing a sharp rise in primary brain tumor diagnoses. But we just aren't seeing that. Primary brain cancer is still only responsible for 1.4% of all cancer diagnoses.
Also, science has never found a proximate mechanism by which RF levels of power to low to cause significant RF tissue heating can cause damage to cells.
Also, as I said, if RF energy were "so harmful" we should be seeing cancer clusters among amateur radio operators. But we aren't. Amateur radio operators are no more likely to get cancer then the general public.
So please stop saying that these milliwatt levels of RF are "so harmful", when there is no evidence that they are. Any risk, if it exists at all, is extremely small. This is why most studies haven't been able to find any link at all. And for the few that have found a link, the statistical correlation is so small, that the results are inconclusive at best.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
I vote for you to do the article. No fancy "how comes" as to why. I'd love to know more about limiting my exposure to EMFs. More people are sensitive to them then know it. Just because you can't see, touch, smell, taste or "feel" them doesn't mean they aren't having an adverse effect.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
I do not think the comparison to a sensitivity to peanuts is accurate. I make the comparison to skin sensitivity to sun exposure. Someone with pale skin gets burned quite easily while someone with darker skin can be in he sun and never get burned. But both people may get skin cancer.
The person with pale skin is likely to avoid sun exposure and therefore is less likely to get skin cancer. The same applies for those who are electrosensitive. We avoid exposure and are therefore less likely to get brain tumors, cancers and other harmful effects that thousands of studies show evidence of from exposure to rf microwave radiation.
Another possible explanation for why this non ionizing radiation is so harmful is due to the fact that it causes the polarity in our cells to twist. This is what causes the friction that results in heating in a microwave oven. While this twisting may not cause harm in the short term, it is the chronic long term exposure that is indicated in causing harm. Sure rf radiation is not knocking electrons out of orbit, but it is interacting with our cells on a molecular level.
As Sam N. points out it is often not until someone has time away from exposure that they are able to correlate their ill health with exposure. This has been my case as well. I recommend that people experiment with their exposure. Turn off wireless devices and see if you feel better. Although just as it may take a while for symptoms to develop it may take a while to rec
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
The actual reason for the break in radio and tv broadcasts are just because FCC requires station identification. AM radio stations are required to broadcast what frequency they operate on because they can be used as emergency navigation beacons by aircraft on the automatic direction finder.
I'm not sure what positive vs. negation ions has to do with this though. Your science is a little off I think. RF doesn't have enough photon energy to ionize atoms.
Arcing power lines do produce ozone though, which is a known carcinogen if breathed in large quantities. But thunderstorms produce far more of it than the occasional power line arc does.
Ozone has a nice smell to it actually, which is what the "clean fresh smell" in the air after a strong thunderstorm is. heh
If this stuff were really dangerous, we should be seeing high levels of cancer and such in amateur radio operators, who have been doing it for over 100 years. But we just aren't seeing that.
Again, I think if there is a risk, it's extremely small.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account: