Raise awareness of environmental health issues in order to better protect our children and future generations.

EMF Studies

23 March 2017

Is 'Junk Journalism' Complaining about 'Junk Science' in The Baltimore Sun?

Is ‘junk journalism’ complaining about ‘junk science’ in The Baltimore Sun?
by Dariusz Leszczynski, betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com, 12 March 2017

this post is open for comments
(see original article)

The most efficient way to mislead an inexperienced reader is to write a story with a pinch of truth, a pinch of ambiguity and a dose of falsehoods or misrepresentations.

This is the way how Alex Berezow and Josh Bloom, of the ‘American Council on Science and Health’, wrote a recent story for The Baltimore Sun: Recommendation to limit Md. School Wi-Fi based on ‘junk science’.

The story was written in context of the recent developments in the area of the use of wi-fi in schools:

“…The Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC), an agency within Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, has recommended that schools reduce or eliminate students’ exposure to Wi-Fi because it believes wireless signals might cause cancer…”.

Berezow and Bloom condemned the action of CEHPAC as:

“…This is pure, unadulterated junk science…”.

I disagree with this opinion and I turn the issue around asking:

Is the story of Berezow and Bloom pure, and unadulterated junk journalism?

Berezow and Bloom wrote “…Schools do not protect students from heat or light. So, why should they protect them from Wi-Fi, a weaker form of radiation?…”.

This single sentence contains several false and misleading statements.

It is false to say that schools do not protect kids from heat and light. Contrary to the statement of the authors schools protect kids from heat and light. Air conditioning systems are to protect from heat. Shades in the windows are to protect from the heat and from the excessive light as too bright light, when reading, can damage eyesight. These protective measures are so obvious that we even do not remember that these are not only for our comfort but also to protect health and well-being.

It is misleading to claim that heat, light and wi-fi are similar in way they act on our bodies. There are differences between light, heat and wi-fi, not only in the amount of carried energy. Authors forget to mention it.

In the course of evolution humans developed in an environment where light and heat are abundant – it all started in Africa. So, our bodies are well equipped to cope with heat and light. Furthermore, heat and light do not instantaneously penetrate deep into our bodies but heat and light penetrate only skin and thin layer of underlying tissue and it takes some time for heat coming through skin to warm up the whole body, and it is not because of the depth of heat penetration but because blood in skin capillaries warms up and warms up deeper lying tissues.

Wi-fi is different. Firstly, as radiation form that is used in wireless communication, it was not there when humans evolved. Furthermore, and this is the major difference with light and heat, wi-fi and radiation form other currently used wireless communication devices, penetrates deep inside our bodies, exposing cells that never earlier had contact with such radiation exposure and might have no mechanisms ready to cope with such “insults”.

The article continues, but the link to it is no longer available.

No comments:

Post a Comment