I am currently serving as one of the leaders of the Greater Hartford Coalition for Safe Technology (GHCST), a grassroots, community-based organization that is working to raise awareness of the potential health and environmental risks of wireless radiation. My research on the socio-spatial distribution of wireless radiation--as well as some of the ideological and discursive rationalizations of its alleged "safety"--can be found on the website that I maintain for the coalition: www.GHC4SafeTech.com
The following measurements were done in collaboration with the Hartford Coalition for Safe Technology, a grassroots organization advocating for keeping communities safe from the health hazards of long-term exposure to wireless radiation. They are strictly preliminary results and currently offer an overly simplistic view of the socio-spatial distribution of wireless radiation in Greater Hartford. Unlike many other environmental justice issues in this country, the health hazards of wireless radiation are not exclusively concentrated within low-income, under resourced, predominantly black and brown communities. Many well-resourced downtown centers, for instance, have high levels of radiation simply due to the concentration of wireless devices and/or because of explicit efforts to bring new technologies (like "5G") to both residential and commercial centers. These dynamics lead to what initially appears as a divide between urban and rural communities, with the latter often enjoying lower levels of environmental exposure to wireless radiation. However, it is not a simple matter of population/devise density.
Instead, another pattern is beginning to emerge, particularly when it comes to the levels of exposure for our youngest communities members: in underfunded districts, schools looking to generate funds are renting their roofs to telecommunications companies. Notably, this is a practice that was recently banned in other countries due to the health hazards for students and educators (see: https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/). This has indirectly tied the distribution of wireless radiation to socio spatial stratification. Far more research is needed, but I will post preliminary findings here as I go.
As with most controversial subjects today, it’s often very difficult to know what information to trust when it comes to EMI (electromagnetic interference) and health. Particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, folks who were critical of 5G quickly earned the stigma of being “quacks,” ensuring that even those who were well versed in the dangers of EMI were hesitant to speak up.
There is a vast and confusing body of research on this topic. Much of it--especially in prior decades (and funded by telecoms!)-- claims that typical EMI exposure levels present "little safety risk." Much of this research is done based on adult males who are 6 feet tall (who therefore have a lot more mass than many of us). Other studies focus exclusively on thermal damage in the short term.
But over the last 10 years, a new body of research has documented that the primary mechanism of damage is likely due to oxidative stress NOT thermal damage (see: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf). These studies have repeated shown a statistically relevant connection between **typical** (for today, at least) levels of exposure and an increased risk of: CANCER, DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, INFERTILITY, COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, BEHAVIOR CHANGES, DNA DAMAGE, and more.
Still, the controversy continues....
Part of the trouble is that the question of what is "safe" is fundamentally subjective. As the Environmental Health Trust shows (https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/).) the United State's FCC guidelines tolerate a FAR higher level of radiation than many other countries. Importantly, the FCC guidelines have a very concerning history (in essence, they were established based on exposing a handful or rats and monkeys to enough radiation to show heat damage, with no concern for non-thermal effects OR the dynamics of long-term exposure).
Another element that complicates this conversation is the nature of privatization and decentralization. At this point, there is frighteningly little oversight or jurisdiction over the deployment of wireless technology. In most cases, there isn't even an official database that documents the locations, nor any legal infrastructure granting municipalities or citizens rights to participate in the process of locating those towers/antennas.
In light of this, I've compiled some resources I found helpful in my own research on this issue.
Presentation on behalf of Hartford Coalition for Safe Technology, in a meeting with Director Liany Arroyo of Hartford (Connecticut) Dept. of Health and Human Services. (April 6, 2023). Corresponding power point slides are below.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.