The Government is Ignoring the Harms of Smartphone Radiation

Should the Government really ban social media for under-16s? The recent debate on the negative effects on children of smartphones and screens has aroused strong feelings on all sides, but some highly relevant facts have been completely ignored.

Armed with recent research on the behavioural effects of engaging electronically, as well as the damaging effects of social media content, campaigners such as Health Professionals for Safer Screens have been making their voices heard in Parliament and now a social media ban has been announced. But the objections to this are many: children could easily circumvent the ban; it might be seen as unwanted state interference in matters which concern parents only; the need for age verification may make it easier for the Government to sneak in digital ID.

My question is: is proper debate really possible, when certain facts have been completely and consistently swept under the carpet? The facts I refer to are the result of decades of scientific research which suggest that electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including wireless radiation from smartphones and other sources, have a negative impact on health. Politicians seem averse to engaging with the scientific evidence on this.

Six years ago, for example, the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry, set up by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, invited submissions and received 147 of them. In its report, the committee seemed to imply that the negative health effects of EMFs detailed in 78 of these submissions were “conspiracy theories” and, though robust evidence was cited in most submissions, the committee failed to report on them and was content to ignore 51% of the written evidence (more details here). When there is clear evidence of health risks, why will policymakers not engage?

Now, however, there is another chance for politicians to engage with robust, modern and independent science that might, admittedly, stand in the way of their goals, but is, in fact, crucial for public health protection.

Last month the Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods inquiry received a vitally important submission from a multi-disciplinary consortium of distinguished scientists at the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). The inquiry was set up by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in March this year and asked how digital devices and social media impacted children’s brain development.

The authors of the submission include: Professor John Frank, physician and Professorial Fellow at Edinburgh University, where he was Chair of Public Health Research and Policy; Dr David Carpenter, a public health physician and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University at Albany, New York; Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, UK medical physician and founder of Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE); Alasdair Philips, an electronics engineer, previously EMF consultant to the UK Department of Health and to the EU; Dr Ronald L. Melnick, an independent consultant, previously senior toxicologist at the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and Dr Joel Moskowitz, Director at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.

I found their whole submission to be highly readable and illuminating. Allow me to quote at length some of the main points:

• “Many of the health effects documented to be associated with screen time overlap with those found to be related to EMF exposure. Problems with memory, attention, sleep and headaches, for example are common to both. … The mechanisms of action of these two types of effects are entirely different and yet all are bundled under the term ‘screen time’ as though they were created via the same pathway.”
• “Smartphones, tablets, laptops, smart watches, ear buds, smart speakers, tracker fobs and gaming systems can all emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation while also producing extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields from their internal electric circuitry and charging systems. … Additionally, artificial blue light is emitted by LED backlighting in screens. This is another type of non-ionising radiation with well-documented biological effects. Blue light at night has been associated with health impacts, including increased breast, prostate and colorectal cancer risk in several epidemiology studies.”
• “Studies in adults have reported numerous adverse effects, including oxidative stress, genetic impacts, blood-brain barrier permeability, sperm damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, sleep impacts, EEG alterations and other neurological effects, as well as multi-systemic acute symptoms, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”
• “Animal and human studies have reported impairments in behaviour, cognition, learning and memory, critical for academic performance and learning. Animal studies are useful for demonstrating that these effects cannot have been created via any psychological mechanisms relating to fear of exposures, nor are they induced purely by screen usage behaviours.”
• “Children, whose nervous systems are still developing and have rapidly dividing cells, are especially susceptible to environmental stressors. Even low-level exposures can result in long-lasting and irreversible effects. Because of their thinner skulls, higher water content and unique physiology, children absorb proportionally more radiation than adults. Research has found cell phone radiation exposures up to 30 times greater in the hippocampus and 10 times greater in the bone marrow of the skull compared to adults.”
• “Intra-uterine development may also be a period of heightened sensitivity… and studies investigating prenatal exposure have reported increased miscarriage, impacts to the brain, cognition, behaviour, development, reproductive system and higher rates of ADHD.”
• “Some scientists expect a link between EMF exposure and Autistic Spectrum Disorders to be eventually proven.”

The authors of this submission note that current exposure limits used in the UK are, at the very least, 200 times higher than would be needed to protect from cancer. Our exposure limits are based on behavioural studies done on five monkeys and eight rats for 40 to 60 minute periods in the 1980s and assume that health is only affected if body-tissue is heated above a “thermal threshold”. The limits ignore “significant scientific research” reporting “adverse effects at non-heating levels…including DNA damage, cancer, sperm damage, neurological effects, and oxidative stress”.

The submission finishes by suggesting ways of reducing exposure in schools and at home, such as using wired ethernet connections, and makes recommendations for action by policymakers.

The statements in this recent submission are backed up by 181 scientific references. But will that be enough to convince our politicians that the risks are much more pervasive than they would like to assume? Can we really afford to continue this experiment on the health of the nation and particularly on the health of vulnerable children? This is so much more than a question of what social media children may use.

My own opinion is that we cannot micromanage how children use the internet, but that there needs to be a complete culture change, where the physical dangers of wireless radiation are admitted and mitigated and where we make a positive choice not to be glued to our phones.

This huge culture change should involve a complete ban on the use of smartphones for under-16s and would necessitate adults leading by example, no matter how difficult. For this to happen, adults would need to be made aware of the risks of physical harm from wireless radiation, as only this awareness would provide the necessary motivation to live differently. With less time on computers or smart devices, children would have more time for outdoor physical activity, social interaction and spontaneous fun, all of which, most would agree, are necessary for a healthy childhood.

The Government needs to lead the way and, instead of relying on the outdated and flawed AGNIR report from 2012, would do well to listen to this up-to-date and robust submission from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields with its recommendations for policymakers, as well as for lowering children’s EMF exposures. The Government needs to ensure that the public is informed of the risks to human health and the environment. Only then does informed consent exist and only then can a proper and full debate be had.