Earth Island Institute logo, tap or click to visit the Institute home page

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Issues > Winter 2012 > From the Editor

From the Editor

An Unhealthy Relationship?

When it comes to gizmos, I’m what you’d call a late adopter. I didn’t buy a cell phone until 2004. I just got a smart phone this year, when my old flip phone finally crapped out and the progressive phone company CREDO Mobile gave me an Android for free. Even though I’m something of a tech curmudgeon, I’ll admit that I love it. I love being able to check my email whenever. I love being able to follow Twitter from just about anywhere. I love the universal access to the worlds of information squirreled away on the Internet.

Sure, love is a strong word to use when talking about a gadget. “Addicted” is how most people describe their relationships to their smart phones. But consider this: When Martin Lindstrom, a longtime brand consultant, carried out fMRI experiments to see how people reacted to their phones, he discovered that subjects’ brains responded to the sounds of their phone much as they respond to the presence of a boyfriend, girlfriend, or family member. When the phone rings, subjects experienced a flutter of activity in their insular cortex – the same part of the brain associated with compassion and affection. We are, all of us, in love with our tech wonders.

It has become conventional wisdom that the intense intimacy we have with our infotainment accessories can have an unhealthy impact on human relationships. (See: texting while talking.) But what if it’s worse than that? What if our love affair with our iPhones and Androids and wi-fi networks is making us physically sick?

I know I’m not alone in feeling queasy about the idea of putting a miniature microwave up to my skull just to catch up with old friends. You don’t have to be a member of the tinfoil hat club to worry about the health effects of being bombarded with radiation 24-7. So I felt a thrill of affirmation when, reading Christopher Ketcham’s cover story (“Warning: High Frequency”), I came across this observation from Louis Slesin, publisher of a newsletter called Microwave News:

“We’re electromagnetic beings. You wouldn’t have a thought in your head without electromagnetic signals. There is electrical signaling going on in your body all the time, and the idea that external electromagnetic fields can’t affect us just doesn’t make sense.”

Sounds right to me. Here’s the rub: We don’t know for certain how, exactly, the white noise of electromagnetic fields is affecting us. As Ketcham reports, so far the research is mixed. Some studies show a linkage between cancerous tumors and cell phone use. Others dismiss any connection. One group of scientists thinks that a few people (anywhere from 3 to 6 percent of the population) have become ill due to “electrosensitivity.” Another group of scientists thinks that’s hypochondriac hogwash. The meta-reviews are contradictory.

I find the scientific uncertainty on the issue frustrating. Had we followed the precautionary principle, we would have made sure that constant exposure to electromagnetic fields was safe before we placed antennae on just about every rooftop and hillock. Now, of course, it’s too late. We’ve already turned ourselves on. I fear that if we ever do find out that our phones and wi-fi networks are affecting us negatively, we won’t be willing to turn them off. We love them too much to say goodbye.

graphic of Jason Mark signature


Email this article to a friend.

Write to the editor about this article.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $15



It would be good for the editor to include a typed name along with signature in the editorial.

By Peter Hubbe on Tue, December 06, 2011 at 7:17 am

The article is interesting but the conclusions drawn from the family’s experience seem like bad science to me. Was the water table tested? Was the soil tested? It sounds more like arsenic poisoning to me - arsenic occurs naturally and can be found in water supplies.

By Jennifer on Fri, December 02, 2011 at 7:34 am

Chris Ketcham’s previous GQ article on the subject helps to illuminate why the studies are still so contradictory—-there has been a big influence exerted by the cell phone companies and their organizations on what kind of studies get funded, who does them, and how they are reported in the news.  Those who find inconvenient effects lose their funding and often their reputations.

  Yet, when you look at some of the industry-touted, big study designs, you see a lot of confounding that somehow quietly slipped through the review process—how could the most RF exposed individuals end up being lumped in with the “unexposed” group?  How could they pronounce safety at 5 or 10 years of exposure for tumors that typically take 20-30 years to show up? That’s the part of the analysis that the public never hears about.  And that’s just the beginning.

When you really watch the industry’s behavior—toward independent scientists, toward communities who want to inform their constituents of the actual state of the science (e.g., San Francisco), toward individuals who challenge their safety proclamations—-you get quite a different picture of the “benevolent” providers of wireless magic.

And, in comparing it to love…look at all the precautions we recommend to protect against unwanted pregnancies, genital diseases and AIDS.  Even the most passionately in love know there is a flip side to consider. And so there is with this technology. There is no reason to deem those who call for wireless precaution as fools.  The tendency to do so is to fall under the sway of very effective industry PR.

By mglaser on Thu, December 01, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Four issues for just
$15 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!