The deployment of wireless telecommunications technologies, starting in the 1990s, triggered the alarm about the assumption about the impact of radio frequency electromagnetic waves on health, however, over the years, any doubt that there could be about the danger of these waves has been cleared by successive scientific works. Under the usual conditions of exposure-below the safety limits established by the International Commission for the Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation-, no biological effects have been detected in people, despite what anti-antenna movements say.
However, as with so many fake news , the facts do not seem to do nick on bulos and prejudices and, one of the last samples of it, has been the sentence of a Spanish court that has recognized electromagnetic hypersensitivity as a work accident.
As explained in SINC Alberto Najera Lopez , doctor of Radiology and Physical Medicine at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, "if there is a causal relationship between the personal exposure to these fields and health, we would be experiencing the greatest pandemic on a global scale ever suffered by the human species. Virtually all places are exposed to this radiation and, therefore, little is the population that would be fully except ".
"However, despite the alarming warnings of the anti-antenna movements , there has been no significant increase in cancer cases that could be associated with this alleged aggressor agent, nor that of others pathologies or syndromes such as the so-called electromagnetic hypersensitivity , "says Najera Lopez, author of the blog author of the blog www.radiandando.es.
electromagnetic hypersensitivity
The expert highlights the multiple epidemiological studies that have not confirmed the announced increase in pathologies by the antennas or in populations exposed to radiation.Another large set of studies has been oriented to determine the possible causes of these symptoms or conditions that described Some people in the presence of an antenna or radiation source when they were broadcasting.
" headaches , dizziness or problems falling asleep , among others, are the symptoms that suffer at all hours patients who say they suffer electromagnetic hypersensitivity.According to them, these symptoms occur and aggravate in the presence of any wireless device, and they suffer a lot.But what science tells us is that what they believe is causing them their pain and what what is really generating it are different things, "says this Bachelor of Physics and Doctor of Neurosciences (2005) from the University of Salamanca.
The simple appearance of news in the media that inform or alert irresponsibly on this issue increases the symptoms of those who suffer from them and also produces a effect called .On the contrary, to hide and hide the antennas, as well as to disseminate current scientific knowledge on this topic, reduces them.
Therefore, it is asked: what scientific evidence has been presented before the court that supports the causal relationship that would justify these and other sentences? According to Najera Lopez, the anti-antenna speech is supported by supposedly rigorous scientific studies that are not at all.
poor quality studies
Next, the expert details one of the latter examples. Its author, Martin Pall, forms with others a group of scientists questioned in the field of bioelectromagnetism.In June 2018, the magazine Environmental Research published the article entitled "WiFi is an important threat to human health" (Wi-Fi is a major threat to the human health).
The article gathers results of seven studies, of very low quality, that link the radiation of the WiFi with different biological effects, almost all in laboratory or animal conditions.The choice of these studies was interested and subjective because there are no selection criteria that justify their inclusion in the study.
justice without scientific evidence
"The author concludes that WiFi threatens human health without providing adequate evidence to support its hypothesis. This and other works are rapidly disseminated by these associations and anti-antenna movements without paying attention, for example, to the comments that the magazine has received where it warns of the torticerous, erroneous and inappropriate use of scientific information, "explains Alberto Najera.
Therefore, he believes that "a judge should focus on official reports from independent institutions such as WHO and ICNIRP, or scientific societies such as the European Bioelectromagnetism Association (EBEA) or the Society of Bioelectromagnetism (BEMS)"
"It will not be a judge who, in a sentence, validating the existence of a relationship between electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, scientifically prove that this relationship exists," he concludes.
Excerpt from an article by Alberto Najera Lopez , originally published in SINC.
Comments
Post a Comment