Peter Limbrick writes:

Though there has been evidence since the first half of the last century of damage to humans from electromagnetic radiation, lessons have not been learned and children are now swamped with radiation –
 

• from mobile phones

• from mobile phone masts and base stations near their homes and schools

• from Wi-Fi gadgets in their living rooms, bedrooms, classrooms and family cars

Like the rest of us, foetuses, babies and children have no escape from this ever-increasing ‘electro-smog’.

There is a severe divergence of opinion about whether or not this radiation is harmful to children. While there is mounting evidence and concern in other countries, there is no independent evidence anywhere to show the technology is safe either in the short term or long term. Whichever side of the argument you are on at the moment, we all have to admit that it is one giant gamble. We simply do not know that this technology is safe.

What are the two sides of the argument? On the ‘pro’ side are all of us who like the ease of communication and enjoy playing/working with our mobile phones, laptops, sat navs, etc. Also on this side are, naturally, the companies who are making the huge profits. The UK government too is ‘pro’ with an income from these companies and a commitment to the technology. The government has ignored the Stewart report which they commissioned and which explored the issues and recommended that they should adopt a precautionary approach in the face of the possible dangers.

On the ‘anti’ side are many independent scientists and medical doctors in many countries who have researched the issue and observed the dangers and the resulting damage and disease, ‘electro-sensitive’ people (varying in estimated numbers from 2% to 7% of the population) who immediately become physically ill in the vicinity of this technology, and people of common sense who see electromagnetic radiation on this scale as monstrous and irresponsible pollution of our environment.

For this last group, this pollution is just as ‘obvious’ as the carbon monoxide in car exhaust, the carcinogens in tobacco smoke (first hand or second hand) and the lead in cheap painted toys. The big problem is that the pollution is invisible so that we can not directly see the effects of the Wi-Fi baby alarm in the bedroom or the Wi-Fi laptop in the classroom. And when someone becomes sick or develops cancer or neurological problems it does not yet occur to us to think about radiation as a possible cause.

In the face of this world-wide gamble with our children’s lives I have been wondering who there is to champion children’s rights in England. I first thought of the Children Act which should protect children from actual and potential dangers to their wellbeing. Then I learned that the Act can not be invoked to prevent masts being erected near homes and schools. The senior MP I asked about this merely commented that mobile phone companies are very rich and very powerful. Perhaps you could ask your MP why the Act appears to have had its teeth drawn on this issue.

I then thought of the Children’s Commissioner as our first and foremost children’s champion and learned that though he is ‘concerned’ the issue is not on his ‘to do’ list. His approach appears to be to listen to children’s concerns and then take up their causes. Unless I have misunderstood the situation, this advocacy approach could disempower –

• children who have not yet been told about the gamble we are taking with their lives (i.e. most children)

• babies and young children who are too young to articulate their concerns

• children and young people who cannot articulate their views because of disabilities

• children and young people who cannot come to a view on this issue because of learning disabilities

If you are a child, young person, parent or professional with responsibility for children you can send your concerns to the Commissioner at Info.request@11MILLION.org.uk

As a science graduate myself I have harboured the optimistic expectation that science would come to the rescue of children and make us all see sense. But I have learned that multi-million dollar companies and governments can influence and even dictate the conclusions official ‘science’ arrives at – and even more so when they are in partnership. On this basis the research paper above about

Wi-Fi and autism will either be buried or condemned. It will have no official recognition and it will not be properly evaluated in this country. I humbly suggest to readers that when they see this research (or any research that indicates dangers to humans from this radiation) being dismissed, they should ask themselves if the person or organisation who is dismissing it either has a reason for taking the government line or is receiving funding from the mobile phone industry.

I have mentioned this electromagnetic radiation issue in this Bulletin a few times over the last months and I have never had a response, positive or negative, from any of the big children’s organisations in the UK. There is space here if you want to use it. (It goes without saying that any organisation, working for children or not, should also be looking seriously at the dangers its staff are exposed to from radiation in the workplace.)