LETTERS

Safe alternative

Posted 8/19/21

To the Editor, There is an issue most people are unfamiliar with, but that, if ignored, can have serious negative consequences for our community. That issue is the ubiquitous use of wireless devices. People might be under the common assumption that

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
LETTERS

Safe alternative

Posted

To the Editor,

There is an issue most people are unfamiliar with, but that, if ignored, can have serious negative consequences for our community. That issue is the ubiquitous use of wireless devices. People might be under the common assumption that wireless connections are the only or best way to access the internet. This is not true. The superior alternative is wired connections, which do not emit harmful radiation, are faster, more secure from hacking, more reliable, and use less energy than wireless.

The FCC ’s 1996 safety guidelines for radiofrequency/electromagnetic radiation only purport to protect from the heating of tissues. This was erroneously thought to be the only possible harm from this non-ionizing radiation. Yet there have been numerous scientific peer-reviewed studies

establishing biological harm at vastly lower levels than the FCC’s guidelines. In fact, on August 13, 2021

there was a landmark decision against the FCC and its outdated safety guidelines for wireless radiation exposure.

“The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the FCC to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was 'arbitrary and capricious.'

“The court held that the FCC failed to respond to 'record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission ’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.' [And there is much evidence that there is a link to cancer as well.] Further, the agency demonstrated 'a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.’”

https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/The cell phone safety testing that was done (decades ago), was conducted on adult males, and only for a short period of time. Never has there been any testing done on young children or pregnant women, or on accumulating risk over time. Consider how the use of hand-held wireless devices has increased exponentially since 1996, including among children.

Recognize that children are at particular risk because their skulls are less thick than adults ’, their brains contain more fluid, and their nervous systems are still developing.

We cannot wait for public policy to catch up to the science. People need to become informed, and to take action now to protect children and other vulnerable groups from this harmful radiation.

Sheila Resseger

Cranston

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here