Some, like Maya Cain, a 67yr old San Francisco resident, are deeply concerned that wireless devices and electromagnetic signals are causing them illness, and that the problem is getting worse. The story in Sunday's paper can be summarized as follows:
Cain began feeling dizzy, embarrassed, and forgetful shortly after PG&E installed a SmartMeter in the room below her, just 8ft underneath her bed. Though her medical history was not entirely spotless, she was concerned because she had never experienced these kinds of symptoms before. Soon after she began having heart palpitations, she went to the hospital, only to find that her "electrosensitive" symptoms--a term she heard on the radio--had little to no correlation to any hard proof.
However, many have reported experiencing "electrosensitive" symptoms, despite the lack of practical evidence. Is this a case of mass hypochondria, or can our wireless world really pose a threat to our health? Physicists and other scientists are skeptical of short-term effects of electomagnetic exposure, having conducted many tests where test subjects were unable to tell the difference between when they were being exposed to signals and when the signals were turned off. Interestingly, many of these studies are funded by the energy industry.
Should the source of funding in a study affect its credibility? Does it have any real credibility? And how can we really know if they're telling us everything they found? Clearly, we should check alternate sources for confirmation, but when companies like PG&E and other energy giants fund most of the studies done and independents are hard to find, who can we really trust?
9 comments:
Unfortunately, in our capitalistic society, there aren't many alternatives when it comes to scientific research. Generally, science research in and of itself isn't a particularly lucrative enterprise. Not very many people are willing to spend the millions of dollars required to conduct studies if there is no direct monetary benefit to them. Thus, most of the onus of scientific research falls on scientists who are working for the RND departments of corporations or on research funded by governmental grants. And it would not be unfair to say that the government is often as self-interested as corporations when it comes to research.
If this is not immediately clear to you, let's take a short trip into the realm of plastics and plasticizers. Pthalates, extremely detrimental plasticizers that has been known to rapidly biodegrade and cause cancer, endocrine disruption, and death have been shown to be innocuous by many governmental studies. However, the scientific world and empirical evidence proves this conclusion false and sheds light on the selfish camaraderie that our topmost government officials share with ruthless business executives. It may also interest you to know that pthalates have been completely phased out in the EU, why hasn't anything similar happened in America?
Maya Cain and others affected by the seemingly unprovable electrosensitive symptoms are not experiencing hypochondria. Much to the contrary, they are being sacrificed to the gods of capitalism. We must take a stand against this, and the only way that we can beat electrosensitivity or pthalates is by taking bold and calculated action against our government and its obvious favoritism when it comes to conducting scientific studies and passing lax regulations.
"We must take a stand against this, and the only way that we can beat electrosensitivity or pthalates is by taking bold and calculated action against our government and its obvious favoritism when it comes to conducting scientific studies and passing lax regulations". That's a very noble and righteous statement, ASaxena, but in terms of practicality, such action may be slightly quixotic. It's not clear what kind of action we should take, but certainly there are some issues, like company-funded studies that should be interpreted with the utmost skepticality. Would we be better off paying for independent, more reliable government studies through taxation? This seems like a reasonable alternative to being fed company-funded "studies," but would the populus approve of being taxed as such? Pessimistically, my opinion is that they would not. Unfortunately, it seems like our nation could care less, though outcries are beginning to come through thanks to the media. (which, by the way, may be doing something good by inflaming an issue)
If only more people had read UnSpun...
I don't agree that such action is quixotic, Alex. It is far from that. Let's take a walk down memory lane and look at the gradual phasing out of DDT throughout the middle of the 20th century. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwb6OvvxMjg)
All it takes to make a seeming impossibility feasible is widespread publicity and corresponding public support. We definitely can move towards more neutral scientific research if this is achieved. Maybe the media should sensationalize electrosensitivity instead of burning religious texts?
Certainly the media would do better to sensationalize electrosensitivity over religious zealots, but then again, I'm not sure we can necessarily tell the media what it can and cannot do. It's interesting that you should bring up DDT as an analogy for the subject of company funded studies, but there are certain distinctions that have to be made between the two. There is no immediate link between company-funded studies and the detrimental effects on society like there was between DDT and it's analogous effects. This practice of company-funded studies will continue no matter how many Rachel Carsons step up with outcry--unless our government does something to counteract them.
If individuals take a strong stand, the media is bound to follow. As such, we do not need to tell the media what to do.
Additionally, DDT is very relevant to "company funded studies" as during the late 1940s and 1950s self-interested corporations (i.e., those that manufactured DDT) conducted research to purport that DDT was the optimal chemical to use in the battle against malaria. As such, the World Health Organization acted upon this research and widely used the chemical throughout Asia, the South Pacific, and Africa. This, as you can imagine, had significantly negative ramifications and eventually led to increased transmission of malaria throughout the relevant regions.
Although there is a need for change in governmental regulations, the initial steps have to come from us, the people. As such, we need more Carsons and need to force policy. We can't simply wait for change to be made for us by our benevolent government.
While I hesitate to get in the middle of this discussion, I had a gut response to this post. My initial response is contradictory to the news story. My house has solar panels and one of the SmartMeters is installed to record our energy consumption. It is on the outside wall of the house, literally a few feet from where I sleep. I have no issues with dizziness, forgetfulness, or anything along those lines, though I do my homework and sleep within six or seven feet. I wonder if that doesn't throw some light on why the government can have a study and the commercial interests another that have conflicting views.
1) I can't see the original article because I don't have Sf Times.
2) I won't believe that these wireless devices are creating any type of problem till there is concrete evidence about it.
3) Funding will always be from an interest group, so everything will have some sort of bias in it.
Every day we are bombarded by many different types of electronic waves, whether it is from cell phones, radio, satellite, wireless routers, wireless remotes, wireless mouse, or others. Though, this article is just a survey; the true problem lies in when these waves will start negatively impacting us. Though, this one wave may or may not cause negative health related problems. There have already been some new surveys that show the possibility of cell phones causing cancer. As new waves are developed with greater spectrum being utilized, there is an ever increasing problem of one or more wave causing damage later in life. Especially with the introduction of wireless power, there could be real danger to the amount of waves our body can take. With an ever increasing range of spectrum, there is a very real possibility of that danger spectrum. Wireless definitely makes our life more interesting and useful, but we must always use caution with new technology. Just like genetic engineering, it is important for us to fully understand a product before accepting it blindly. So, it is important to see many different surveys conducted by many different groups or organizations.
While I agree that there should be hardcore evidence to prove whether or not this these "electrosensitive" symptoms actually do affect one's physical condition, I believe there are things we have to simply accept as bizarre and out of human control. Take the Bermuda Triangle for example. Nobody knows why ships and planes always mysteriously disappear there. There simply isn't enough science or conformation in life to prove that A leads to B. Although yes, funding may cause some bias, and certain chunks of information may excluded out of published findings, it is important to note that just because the energy companies fund these findings doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot complete mistrust them. Maybe they're the only ones that care enough to actually attempt to solve this problem. It's up to our own judgment, I believe, when choosing to believe certain sources and unexplained phenomenons that may arise.
Post a Comment