The New Green Economy

Apple, a name brand which has come to embody the notion of the "American success story," has not reached such a status without cutting some major corners.  Apple has shown that externalizing almost all of its costs is one way to make it to the top: using offshore labor for product assembly and manufacturing as well as conveniently sweeping numerous environmental costs under the rug.

These costs include inflicting damage on living systems all along a given product’s life cycle, from the extraction of materials to manufacturing to disposal, not to mention the unknown effects of wireless technology on living systems, including the potentially harmful effects on users.

The result is a company that is profiting handsomely from the American marketplace and in turn giving a questionable amount (and some deadly toxins) back to that marketplace. Everyone seems to be happy. Temporary value is created, but future generations are left to pay the price. The Story of Electronics is coming out this fall which promises to give a clearer picture of the true costs of electronics production and consumption.

Apple, Motorola, and Sony’s Wi-Fi gadgets are a dime a dozen nowadays, and these companies hold a highly-vested interest in ensuring that any information that may call into question the safety of their wireless devices is quickly and conveniently overlooked—much like the cover-ups of cigarette manufacturers some 50 years ago.

Hindsight of course is 20/20, and it took decades of arduous suffering and billions of dollars in health care costs to bring to light the true costs of the tobacco industry on the well-being of the general public.

Apple's iPhone 4 - How Safe Is It?

Now granted, wireless devices do differ vastly from cigarettes in that they provide us with a great deal of functionality.  In fact, I must admit that I have somewhat of an overly obsessive relationship with my laptop computer.  Since having ditched my clunky old desktop two years ago, you'd be hard-pressed to find me just about anywhere without this little portable contraption at my side.

I've been logged on for far more many hours than I'd be willing to admit—cranking out memorandums, schedules, and projects for the following work day; composing countless e-mails to co-workers, clients, friends, and family members; downloading mp3's and dabbling around on YouTube; or catching up on the latest news from around the world.

Wi-Fi technology plays a substantial role in my life, and the truth is it's hard to imagine trying to get by without it. A snapshot of the typical modern-day lifestyle in the majority of the developed world reveals a varying degree of dependency on an ever-growing number of portable communication devices.

Just take a look at the United States: in 2009 the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association reported over 285 million cell phone service subscribers—roughly 85% percent of the nation's total population.

That being the case, one issue that is certainly worth deliberation is what, if any, are the adverse effects of these devices on our health? That very question has fueled the ongoing debate over the risks of wireless communication devices since the debut of widespread mobile phone usage some fifteen years ago.

Non Ionizing Radiation

I recently came across an article in the Boulder Weekly that helped to shed some light on the issue. Dr. Jerry Phillips, Director of the Science Learning Center at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, spoke to the newspaper and shared his insight on the potential dangers of the latest in wireless technology on human health.

To begin with, it helps to understand the basic differences between the different types of radiation found along the electromagnetic spectrum, mainly the ionizing and non-ionizing varieties. In the case of wireless communication, Phillips notes that we're dealing with non-ionizing radiation: the lower-frequency electromagnetic energy found in popular wireless gadgets such as your laptop, Blackberry, Kindle, and iPad.

While it is widely known that ionizing radiation (commonly found in X-rays and gamma rays) has proven to be carcinogenic, Phillips observes that it remains uncertain as to how and if non-ionizing radiation may adversely affect our physical well-being.

Ionizing radiation sources contain enough energy to alter the structure of a given atom in a living system, which typically cause mutations that lead to cancer. Although non-ionizing radiation sources emit significantly far less amounts of energy, there may be enough present to cause minor disruptions in an atom's overall configuration, raising the concern of their effects on humans.

If you're looking for irrefutable evidence that completely validates or disproves any such effects, Phillips points out that you'll find a lot of both. According to Phillips, current studies in the U.S. are "inconclusive".

For the wireless products industry however, "inconclusive" is a win because no one can effectively say "this is dangerous". Phillips himself was conducting a study for Motorola which was abruptly terminated when he began to show results.

Living Tissue

Dr. Phillips and his team conducted a study for Motorola, doing work with rats that were exposed to cell telephone frequency fields and looking for changes in the incidence of central nervous system tumors.

The first study surprisingly showed a decrease in central tumors in the rats exposed to these frequency fields.  Phillips noted that what appeared to be good news for the study’s sponsor—evidence that might suggest their product had some kind of magical regenerative power on its user—was not at all the case.  Research pointing to even a potentially positive side effect of telephone use was problematic for Motorola because it suggested that the radiation emissions from the phones were somehow interacting with and affecting living tissues - a can of worms the company did not want to pursue.

The same study then went on to analyze potential DNA damage on both rats and human beings.  The frequency and time exposure that led to a decrease in DNA damage in the rats also resulted in a similar decrease in people.  Phillips and his team assumed the reason for the decrease was actually due to the fact that the organisms’ immune systems affected by the frequencies kicked into gear in order to combat the incoming energy, which resulted in an overall elevated immunity that helped to protect the systems’ well-being.

Because the study involved a limited amount of radiation exposure, the conclusion was that the organisms’ bodies were able to effectively manage the effects of the invading frequency fields.  Phillips then proposed another study to see the effects of increased amounts of radiation on DNA, at which point Motorola pulled the plug on funding.

EU Takes Precaution

A number of studies over the past couple of years in several European countries have suggested that non-ionizing radiation may perhaps be more dangerous than we may think. For example, research in Denmark linked frequent mobile phone usage in pregnant women to an increase in learning disorders and developmental problems in their babies.

A study out of Sweden evidenced that continual exposure to cellular or cordless phones over a ten-year period was linked to an increased risk of a particular type of benign brain tumors. The EU Parliament voted just last year to increase wireless safety standards, expressing a marked concern for the well-being of children.

Phillips says he sees the EU's initiative as being "suitably cautious" and adds, "[w]hen I talk to people about this, it comes down to always being informed and making our own decisions as the best decisions we can make."

Cell Phones and Laptops

Phillips admits to owning a mobile phone but takes advantage of the hands-free option to keep it as far away from his body as possible. At home he has access to Internet via cable modem, thereby eliminating any need for Wi-Fi access.

Phillips also expressed notable concern with using laptops, as they are often in unduly close proximity to where it really counts. "On the lap is kind of iffy because you have some pretty sensitive organs that are exposed to fields," he said. (I suddenly find myself moving this laptop a few inches away to a nearby tabletop...just in case.)

A Few Simple Precautions

I for one don't foresee any downturns for the wireless market any time in the near future. On the contrary, as the demand for low-cost Wi-Fi gadgets increases and their production cost decreases, worldwide usage is bound to escalate dramatically.

I think we'd be wise to take a stance on this issue similar to that of the Dr. Phillips and the EU. After all, too much of just about anything can be harmful, especially when that anything is not part of the natural world.  So the next time you find yourself with that ultra light netbook on your lap or surfing the Internet on your Blackberry or iPad, perhaps you want to think twice about Dr. Phillips' studies and the various indicators for caution that have arisen in labs around the globe. There's no harm in taking a few precautions for your own well-being and that of your friends and family.

Want more information? Read the full interview with Dr. Phillips at Boulder Weekly »