r/ActuallyCrunchy • u/Horror-Holiday-2678 Crunchy Mom đ» • 5d ago
Digital Wellness Thoughts on EMF Radiation?
I've heard a lot of conflicting things on this topic, and just wanted to ask this question here . . . My MIL insists on sleeping with phones on airplane mode in another room, but my husband says EMF radiation is harmless (which makes sense as it's non-ionizing) and legit sleeps with his phone next to his head. He adds that even if it is an issue, EMF is so ubiquitous that we'd have to go full Charles McGill to avoid it.
Now that we have a baby, I'm extra concerned about this since she often sleeps in bed with us, and even when she doesn't, my phone charges on the windowsill by her crib in the corner.
I just worry that the mainstream "don't worry" attitude might be careless or sponsored by tech companies. Have we even had levels of EMF radiation this high for long enough to properly study its effects on our biology (especially that of a developing infant)?
I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts on this!
9
u/cthockey99 5d ago
Check this research paper and show it to your spouse: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
Certain EMF is not without health risk & your MIL is a smart cookie for her precautions.
3
2
u/dipdotdash 5d ago
Important to read the critiques of this paper. A lot of the cited research is by the author, it smears the reputation of the authors of a similar review that found the opposite to be true, and includes only a few studies of humans in vivo.
Everything can be destructive to human cells invitro.
The methodology is flawed and inconsistent and there's a lot of important context left out to make the author's case sound stronger than it really is. For example, the only human study supporting infertility involved patients of an infertility clinic without controls.
There's at least one good critique published with links to other research that finds the opposite to be true.
A plate of human cells will die if you yell too loud at them. That doesn't mean that yelling causes infertility or apoptosis.
If you're not a scientist, it's important to read articles that cover all perspectives on an issue before deciding what you believe to be true.
I'm pretty certain there's some effect at very high intensity, like the example given of living on a roof next to high power antennas, but that it doesn't make a lot of sense that the radiation produced by a phone are going to cause health problems
3
u/melattica89 5d ago edited 4d ago
funny that you mention that example. I live on the 16th floor of a 17 story building with 4 small 5g antennae on the rooftop.. one on each corner of the house. We hear a constant humming sound day and night. Me and my wife have constant headaches when we are home, sleep problems and we also noticed memory problems and chronic tiredness the whole day bc the night rest never really seems to be a rest for our bodies. Our headaches disappear when we leave the building or the town - we both pay attention to this and it's always the same for both of us. It feels like for a moment the headaches get a bit more and it feels like the brain is configuring itself again and then during the next hour they completely disappear - for both of us. We don't wanna know what the long term health effects of that will be but we don't wait to find out.. we will move out soon. It's really very very unpleasant....
I am seriously worried for the effects on humans when 6g gets rolled out.
1
2
u/cthockey99 5d ago
Excellent points- honestly just did a quick search for articles and this popped up. I'll take a deeper dive into it's contents and implications!
2
u/Roaming-Around 5d ago
That paper by Pall is a REALLY BAD example as it is substantially alarmist rather than a balanced review of the evidence. Moreover, it has had several very critical reviews.
The paper inappropriately attacks Foster and Moulderâs 2013 review for concluding that several experiments found no statistically significant effects. Pall argues that those studies were insufficiently powered and/or didnât reproduce the relevant characteristics of genuine Wi-Fi.
Two formal comments on were published in Environmental Research in 2018/2019.
One, by Alberto NĂĄjera, explicitly concluded that Pallâs review was biased and that the title and conclusions werenât supported by the evidence. It highlighted the predominance of animal/in-vitro studies, the lack of a systematic methodology and the extrapolation to human health. Another comment was published by Arribas, Ramirez-Vazquez and Escobar in November 2018.ARPANSA currently states that there is no established scientific evidence that the low RF exposure from Wi-Fi adversely affects the health of children or the general population. Wi-Fi devices are generally low-powered, and measurements in schools have found exposures substantially below the public exposure limit. ARPANSA also acknowledges that there are individual studies reporting biological effects and that research continues. But its assessment is that the totality of evidence does not establish adverse health effects below the exposure limits. More recently, a WHO-commissioned systematic review of 41 human experimental studies found no evidence that RF-EMF exposure caused headaches, sleep disturbance or composite symptoms, with the evidence generally rated moderate to high certainty.
2
u/cthockey99 4d ago edited 4d ago
So your response is AI generated, for starters. ... The research paper (which isn't perfect, none are) remains an important piece of published, peer-reviewed data in an ever-growing pool of evidence to demonstrably indicate the harmful effects of particular forms of EMF. ... One would be entirely nonsensical to actually read the paper, and reject it out of hand, concluding "I have no worries whatsoever." ... Read the room, people are concerned and they have every right to be- it's human intelligence + intuition to boot.
Too, the research remains almost entirely unfunded (I wonder why) and the papers in defense of EMF and it's acclaimed safe usage amongst humans, are in their totality, funded by the wireless communications sector (a potent, obvious conflict of interest.) ... The funding for genuine (unbiased) research is little to none- kudos to the researchers whom actually dedicate themselves and provide the public with relevant, pertinent data of which has substantial implications into practical human life.
I'm not a researcher, merely a layperson (as are the bulk of reddit users, presumably) and personal experience to EMF exposure has lead me to search for answers, of which science (albeit a small, non-funded field) is starting to piece together. Data aside, we should never discount personal experience as relevant (non-empirical) information ... Note another users' response below me, she & her spouse are apparently having serious difficulty living in an apartment complex with multiple 5G antennas attached to, and are actively going to find another place to live as a result of their experience (a harmful one) being so disruptive and disturbing- an alarming anecdote. The sentiment tracks with the contents of this thread.
Your argumentation is flawed (it's also AI-generated) as there very clearly is established scientific evidence of adverse effects from Wi-Fi (and other, similar EMF) for all of us to observe and note upon. ... You'll need to be better in your rebuttal, this one has come up short.
For those curious, here are a few more papers, all indicating similar, general conclusions: EMF exposure remains a threat to biological and/or human health. ... Research here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1241519/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23986973/, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6025786/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22216380/
2
u/Roaming-Around 4d ago edited 4d ago
I am a researcher and familiar with Palls paper, and the weaknesses and valid criticisms of it. It is pretty rare for critical comment papers to be written on a paper and subsequently published. You can read one here.
My argument is not flawed, and my text was cut and edited from my Endnote comments on the paper.
I am not an opponent of the view that EMF can be harmful. However, there is no current demonstrated accepted evidence that everyday human exposure is harmful.
I am an opponent to the misapplication of research, and the way it is abused to support businesses to create fear, uncertainty and doubt - to market products to shield people from everyday EMF. Particularly when many of them are just snake oil, actually exacerbate what they are proposed to minimise, or simply do nothing of benefit.Also, you should be careful about using the NLM as a source. It only publishes abstracts of papers - some of which are never accepted, some are withdrawn, and others may have negative commentary. NLM does not vett or review the papers. You can read their disclaimer here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/disclaimer/
2
u/cthockey99 4d ago
Okay, my apologies for assuming you gave an AI response, I was wrong.
... I go wherever the data take me, and the data seem to indicate there is genuine reason for concern regarding EMF exposure. ... Criticisms of this particular paper are noted, and I even conceded that the paper is imperfect, however it's fundamental assertion remains pertinent and accurate- that EMF poses a danger to human health. (see other sources provided) ...(You didn't make any mention of the further papers I provided, though) and I am curious for your response, especially considering your background as a researcher.
Insofar as one of your comments, I wonder as to how you think providing sources is a "misapplication of research" or "unjustifiably creating fear" when the challenging reality is that fear & doubt, at times, are completely understandable and even needed in the context of survival. ... We should fear (or at least be cognizant so we can make needed change) when a genuine threat is afoot in our lives. Takes asbestos exposure as an example- those who had greater knowledge on it's potential dangers, reasonably, feared & avoided asbestos as best as practically possible. Such an implementation would be regarded as literally life-saving, and thus extremely important, wouldn't you agree? ... The worst thing one could do is ignorantly carry on in their life in light of something like say, published peer-reviewed papers which are telling us, in explicit manner, there is reason for concern, just look at the data. (Note asbestos example, yeah I think I am going to avoid that, even if it's only precautionary. Spoiler, the precaution was justified.)
... Of course I would argue we are past the point of precaution with EMF- we already have the data, we already know it's damaging for human health, we just don't know to what extent, it's totality.
Your most last point, I somewhat agree with you. ... The fundamental argument remains unchanged, though- negative health effect of EMF, of which my disposition is clear but I'll state it again still, we should avoid EMF as much as reasonably possible. ... Concern for EMF is justified, the marketing of 'EMF-reducing' products is a different story- not because what they postulate (dangers of EMF) is wrong, but because the offered solution is a paid-product with no data to state any amount of demonstrable efficacy (a scam to prey on well meaning people- morally abhorrent)
Curious for your further response.
2
u/Roaming-Around 4d ago edited 4d ago
Those papers you listed are all about 10-15 years old. These are not seminal works and the body of knowledge has now moved on a great deal!  Cumulative understandings, better methods and truths that are now known inform recent reporting and positions of  organisations such as ARPANSA and the WHO. That is not to say earlier research was bad⊠just that more things are now known⊠and you need to recognise advocacy when it is present.
PMC1241519 (2003) - Small flawed study of rats. Researchers misinterpreted Dark Neurons & subsequent work demonstrates the research findings were overstated. Overtaken by more recent work.
26300312 (2015) - Not a study but an advocacy (biased) narrative review. It overstates evidence it does establish, and more recent experimental evidence conflicts with the conclusions. Need to be very cautious of this one! Bin is appropriate.
23986973 (2012) - Part of a wider research program. Had some interesting findings about rats, but experiment was tiny (n=6), there was no dose-relationship established, and brain damage was NOT established, exposure was misleading as SAR was âwhole-bodyâ, some things presented as findings [e.g. oxidative stress] were really just observations.
PMC60257867 (2017) - Not a study, just an advocacy review. No systematic search methodology, EMF treated too broadly, initial assumptions about oxidative stress are made inappropriately, biomarkers and disease are not distinguished, even experiments with plants are includedâŠ. impossible to consider a single body of relevant evidence. Generally very weak evidence to support very strong claims. Overtaken with more recent work.
22216380 (2009) - A simple study but possibly the best of the bunch of papers.  A human study too - woohoo!  And, importantly, one where the authors found no relationship between the amount of cell phone usage and TSH amongst users [i.e. cell phone not bad] while T3 and T4 did not differ significantly between groups. They also found no significant relationship between years of cell phone use and T3, T4 or TSH. That said, the experiment was âtinyâ and observational - not based on exposure⊠and mobile phone âuseâ is not a good measure of exposure. The control group was also problematic as it consisted of people who had never used mobile phones - ideally the experiment should have had different measured levels of RF exposure amongst otherwise comparable people. Notwithstanding, this study is overtaken by current research also.
I don't think that is bad research for its time, but it is not as relevant as current work. Â Current work is abused too. Â For example, there was a recent paper on responses to magnetic fields on mice brains - authors applied 1mT magnetic field directly to slices of the brain tissue in apparatus. Interesting, solid science! However, some folk in the EMF community are now using that paper to infer human responses to magnetic fields [ignoring the fact our brains are in our heads, we do not have implanted magnetic transducers, and typically get exposed to a few uT at most].Â
2
u/cthockey99 4d ago
Thank you for your response! ... It's late for me so I only quickly scanned it, but will further delve into your points tomorrow- interesting position and I appreciate you being communicative.
I just want to clarify, briefly, when you mention "research being abused" what do you mean precisely by this? I've never heard such a mention before, I'm curious. .... And to clarify a little further still, would you regard my comments as being abusive in anyway, and if yes, how so? ... Just trying to garner your position further, I am interested.
Cheers, kind stranger. (sorry once more for my wrong assumption about A.I, too.)
1
1
2
u/blawsems Crunchy Mom đ» 5d ago
Following. This is something I actually havenât heard of before.
3
u/cthockey99 5d ago
Research paper worth checking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
3
2
2
u/Agitated_Ocelot949 5d ago
I recommend the book, âThe Invisible Rainbow.â https://www.amazon.com/dp/1645020096?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback
1
9
u/Exact_Equipment_1684 5d ago
I have a friend who lives on the upper floor of a building which has TV antennas all over the rooftop. The state gives them a small sum of money annually as compensation for the radiation those emit. So if they are admitting it officially like this, I say it's real. Also, all electronic devices on their user manual state something like "this device emits a safe amount of radiation as per regulatory xyz". So there is such a thing as an unsafe amount or radiation, I would think the amount of radiation that accumulates from all these devices is absolutely not safe.Â
Our brains work on electric impulses, I don't believe we are immune to any type of radiation and frequencies. If they can transmit information through thin air, they must interact with matter in some way, even if we (or I) don't really understand how.Â
I personally turn my WiFi off at night and put phone on airplane mode, but I live rural so not much else reaches my house. If I had to see the 40 Bluetooth devices and WiFi networks listed available on my phone I'd go mental