What have more than a hundred studies found about Wi-Fi and the modulation of human brain waves?
“The Possible Existence of Cognitive Effects of RF (Radio Frequency) Energy To been one of the most contentious discussions on the still controversial question of whether exposure to RF energy at levels we all commonly encounter in the environment has any health consequences.
WiFi has been called an “uncontrolled global experiment on the health of mankind”. The effects of radiofrequency fields have acquired new urgency after the World Health Organization officially declared cellphone radiation is “a ‘possible’ human carcinogen (Class 2B)” based on brain tumor risks, but his ruling “To no relevance to the possible health effects of Wi-Fi, for which the exposure conditions are very different…” As you can see below and at 0:56 in my video Friday favourites: Does Wi-Fi Radiation Affect Brain Function?, we can absorb One hundred times less radiation in typical Wi-Fi exposure compared to cellphones, but you don’t know if there are any effects until you test it.
“To date, more than 100 studies have been published on the effects of RF energy on electroencephalograms (EEG)” human brain wave patterns. “Although the results are mixed, a fairly consistent finding is that short exposures to RF energy (10-20 minutes) to the head produce small, but statistically significant, changes in the EEG of resting and sleeping subjects…(and) most health agencies recognize these findings,” so the question is: What do you do with this information? “For example, a recent study sponsored by the European Commission concluded that ‘the relevance of small physiological changes remains uncertain and a mechanistic explanation is still lacking.’ We don’t even know how it happens at all. Some have suggested it is an artifact of the test and that “EEG cables can act as antennae that carry RF energy to the scalp, skull bone and brain” – in effect, contributing to the changes they were configured to measure.
Either way, from what the researchers found, you don’t have see the kinds of neurocognitive effects with Wi-Fi exposure that you do with cellphones. For example, “no measurable effect of acute Wi-Fi exposure was found on…reaction time in the psychomotor alertness test…or objective measures of sustained attention.” Now, these results were from 2.4 gigahertz Wi-Fi tests, but we would expect even lower exposure levels from the new 5 gigahertz Wi-Fi “due to the lower penetration depth.”
Although, more specifically, “a person who spent hours a day glued to a smartphone or tablet may well suffer all sorts of neurocognitive effects – from technology use, not RF exposure”, not radiation.
There East an abundant literature on the implications of these new technologies for the health of young people, but it is a question of content. For example, “Sexually explicit material is now available without discrimination to young people, and studies have linked pornography to a number of negative health effects.” We have to ask ourselves, as a society, what effect this may have. Girls and boys “are exposed to a “colossal” amount of digital media on smartphones”, which makes access to pornographic material too easy, cheap and anonymous.
“Young people can show pornography at school and in other public places as well as in the more private setting of the home or bedroom,” and researchers have only just begun to catalog the effects this can have on the attitudes, behaviors and relationships of young people.
Most students these days report view online pornography as a minor, before the age of 18. Of 1,500 high school students surveyed, the vast majority admit accessing pornographic sites, with nearly one in three for more than an hour at a time. What does this teach the next generation?
As you can see below and at 3:50 in my videoAfter session Through and coding the content of 400 videos from mainstream porn sites on the Internet, researchers found that more than a third of the videos displayed acts of physical violence against women, such as gagging or choking. Does watching such content lead to sexually aggressive behavior? Researchers follow up 1,500 young people aged 10 to 15 for years to see if there was a link between intentional exposure to this material and subsequent sexually aggressive behaviors, such as sexual assault. They “found that intentional exposure to X-rated violent material over time predicted an almost 6-fold increase in risk for self-reported aggressive sexual behavior.” But, who came first? “A major difficulty with interpreting most research in this area indicates that adolescents predisposed to earlier and more varied sexual engagement may be the ones who will seek exposure to sexual content through the media. They can be drawn to this material in the first place, so that no cause and effect relationship can be established. All we can do as parents is monitor what our children are doing to the best of our abilities.
It took quite a turn, didn’t it? I go where the science leads, and the Internet porn angle seemed like the biggest potential health threat.