There are plenty of people who will tell you that cell phone and cordless phone radiation is harmless. The most troubling part, though, is that many of these people are the ones who make U.S. governmental policies on electromagnetic field, or EMF dangers.
In a piece published by the Portland Press Herald, Marina Schauffler, Ph.D. and founder of website NaturalChoices.com, outlined the errors that infect our current policies and stance towards EMF dangers. As she points out, it’s not as easy as simply saying who’s right and who’s wrong.
“The science is complex, with plenty of troubling findings but enough uncertainty to rationalize the mantra of ‘more research needed,'” Schauffler wrote. “Phone owners assume – wrongly – that their devices already adhere to strong safety guidelines, not realizing that the current regulatory landscape is a sham.”
As she correctly recalls, more than 190 Scientists in 40 countries called on the U.N. and the WHO for greater protection against non-ionizing radiation in May of 2015. Within just the first few minutes of use, bioeffects can occur at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use.
Without explicitly stating it, she notes how insane it is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not changed its standards for exposure guidelines from cell phones in two decades, even though groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics have requested they do so.
A deeper look behind the curtain reveals even scarier potential conflict of interest at the policy level. Consider this: the current chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, was president and CEO of the cell industry trade group, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, for eight years before taking his current post.
Even the government’s current standards are arbitrary and virtually useless. Right now, federal guidelines use the SAR, or specific absorption rate, to measure EMF dangers. Except what they don’t advertise is that this number is based on the brain of a 220-pound man and has been questioned by many for its scientific credibility. According to Ph.D. and biophysicist Martin Blank of Columbia University, SAR is “essentially an arbitrary standard devoid of value from a scientific or public health perspective.”
EMF efficiently harms cells at a billion times lower levels than conventional heating and needs to be taken seriously by the decision-makers in charge of policy in this country. However, as Schauffler brilliantly illustrates in her piece, that day likely won’t come until we can separate the lobbyist groups petitioning for “status quo” legislation, even in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.