posted before and flagged<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109</a>
Time for an old favorite:<p><a href="http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations" rel="nofollow">http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations</a>
Having read a number of these studies, incl those done on cellular masts, its concerning. An early warning was a connection between digital signals (incl wifi) and baby-sleeping patterns where babies reliably cried more at night if a digital signal was present, but this touches on so many factors that Im tempted to cut all wifi while they finish their studies.
It's interesting how concerns around the long-term effects of EMF exposure that we heard about fairly frequently in the early days of widespread cell phone usage seem to have virtually disappeared from the public consciousness, despite, AFAICT, not really ever being answered. Meanwhile usage, power output, and proximity (BT headphones, ie. RF transmitters <i>in</i> your head for hours at a time?) are all increasing.<p>Much of the research (and the FCC's regulatory regime) has traditionally used a model based on cell PHONE usage ie testing for effects of relatively short periods of exposure, with the phone beside the head, where the skull acts as a shield[1]. But these assumptions aren't applicable to smartphone usage today, where 90% of people under 35 have been sleeping with their phones for years[2], and most usage involves the screen in front of the face, where there are large areas of only soft tissue (eyes & nasal cavity) between the device and your brain.<p>Furthermore, most testing largely centers around Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is basically concerned with the question of power (ie heat) transmitted to the body (basically "are the microwaves cooking your?"). "Cooking" is a fairly well-understood process, and tissue's ability to dissipate heat can be fairly easily modeled to ensure exposure stays within a safe range. But several of the concerns this meta-analysis points to have a dose-response curve is not so simple or clearly understood, meaning the effects could well occur, even within the usage patterns deemed "safe" on a SAR basis (their language is actually stronger, claiming these "should be considered [...] established effects of Wi-Fi")<p>All that being said, I don't see this as a definitive answer that our current exposure levels of RF radiation are necessarily harmful, but I have definitely wondered whether our (grand)children's generation will look back at images of us staring at our screens the way we look at images of our parents' generation frolicking in clouds of DDT[3] (I've also wondered this a more often about spray-on sunscreen ads[4], but that's a whole other rant)<p>----<p>[1]: Most industry recommendations make the laughable assumption that the phone is not even in contact with the body. Manufacturers basically threw a shit-fit when Berkeley started trying to inform people that most "normal", against-the-body usage was likely outside of what FCC exposure guidelines test for: <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-cellphone-radiation-warning-law-will-stand-appeals-court-finds/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-cellph...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-18-29-year-olds-sleep-with-their-smartphones-2012-11" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-18-29-year-olds-sleep-...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://youtu.be/mX6fQLrueW0?t=14" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/mX6fQLrueW0?t=14</a><p>[4]: <a href="https://youtu.be/m0WH-xb6Htw?t=6" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/m0WH-xb6Htw?t=6</a>