Why Wi-Fi? - How Healthy is Your Mobile?

This article was also published on:
smerconish.com/news/2020/3/11/why-wi-fi-how-healthy-is-your-mobile

Our globalized world urges us to be constantly connected, with those we know and with those we yet get to know, via digitation, the Internet, the Internet of Things etc., fulfilling the basic human need to "belong to a group" - related to "the fear of missing out". But who benefits most from being connected 24/7?

Much we learn about 5G, its security risks, Huawei and Chinese government's interests. Being constantly connected makes you the pure transparent citizen, some even speak of "the perfect slave" of big-tech and government knowing you inside out, about every aspect of your life - preferences, locations, behavioral patterns...


Many people seem to have already accepted this as part of the deal. But mostly under the radar has stayed a different aspect I am outlining now.

All the great technological inventions we use in everyday life - many take for granted - are the brainchild of highly-talented, often hypersensitive people (remember, only the successful are called geniuses) feeling uncomfortable in crowds, as many hypersensitive people suffer from everyday group dynamics, mass phenomena (Bruce Tuckman's stages of group development - forming > storming > norming > performing).

So what's bad about Wi-Fi? Not so fast, please! Counterquestion: Why do we need to be connected all the time? It's common knowledge that it’s unhealthy to be on the call permanently. Smartphone Addiction and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is widely known and accepted. But people with EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) are stigmatized and marginalized, even defamed as anti-tech. How come?

Despite occasional EHS/EMF-documentaries our tech-loving and highly-power consuming world spearheaded by big-tech downplaying the fears of the people stultifies those sensitive to electromagnetic fields, since EHS is perceived as running against economic-technological interests.

It's not in big-tech's interest to respect the individual's sensitivity despite the considerable number of people suffering from EHS. Consider people developing various symptoms when exposed to radiation of electromagnetic fields intensified with every new standard - 3G to 4G to 5G.

How little we hear of the dangers of constant exposure to electromagnetic fields publicly. It's mostly downplayed, as people want to be up-to-date, not to be left behind by technological developments, and definitely not to be perceived as backward, ignorant by their social environment.

But jumping on this technology bandwagon has a flip-side, as we are surrounded by devices radiating day and night: Wi-Fi, cell towers, mobiles, tablets, cordless phones, notebooks, wireless headphones etc. The European EMF Guideline stated: "Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms."

Despite big tech's marketing efforts to spin constant exposure to radiation as cool, hip, smart and healthy, exposing children - more vulnerable due to their dynamic developmental physiology - in elementary schools fully digitized to electromagnetic fields with Wi-Fi 24/7 as future of mankind, there are many studies published about this topic, such as the research of Austrian environmental epidemiologist Dr.med. univ. Gerd Oberfeld M.D. of the state of Salzburg, Austria, who gave many interviews making the public aware of the EHS symdrome.

So Dr. Oberfeld and his colleagues at the European Academy of Environmental Medicine recommend to reduce the exposure to radiation by electromagnetic devices to a minimum due to its carcinogen (cancer-causing) aspect.

Further studies have shown: "We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. (...). Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones."

What's the point? It's not about the radiation itself but about the dose (the dose makes the poison), about the 24/7 exposure to radiation giving the body no time to regenerate. Therefore for years the Austrian Medical Chamber has published a 10-rules guideline for mobile, Wi-Fi and other electronic devices usage (in translation):

• Limit mobile usage to a minimum! Use land lines if possible and write text messages instead of making/taking calls with mobiles. Under 16-years-old should limit the use of mobiles only to emergencies. Teenagers' physiological development is dynamic.
• "Distance is your friend!" - Keep mobiles off the head/body. Use loudspeaker function or wired earbuds/earphones/headphones instead.
• While using loudspeaker function or wired earbuds/earphones/headphones/headsets, keep mobiles away from the head/body! For men: Don't put mobiles near to the genitals (pockets) - infertility risk. For women: Special risk during pregnancy. Put mobiles in your bag. Individuals with electrical implants (pacemakers etc.) need to keep off from mobiles.
• Don't make/take calls in transport (car, bus, train)! Mobiles will increase signal strength (radiation) to provide coverage in the cabin.
• Don't text and drive, nor internet surfing, otherwise risking accidents.
• Don't use Wi-Fi, if possible! Traditional LAN is radiating way comparably. Avoid radiating devices: Cordless phones, wireless data sticks, wireless cubes!
• Go offline and use flight mode, when data connection is not needed, reduces radiation exposure! You don't need to be online for using camera, alarm, calculator, playing offline games or downloaded music.
• Limit number of apps to the necessary! The less apps installed the less you are exposed to radiation. To lower your mobile's radiation level disable your apps' background activity and data connection when redundant. You still can make/take calls.
• Avoid calls in locations with bad connection (basement, elevator etc.)! Mobiles increase signal power (radiation) to keep connection. Use wired earbuds/earphones/headphones/headsets or loudspeaker function.
• Check SAR-ratings! The higher your mobile's SAR-value the higher its radiation, posing risks to your health.

Democratization in knowledge society aside, people still tend to only take for real what they can sense, unless it's hyped by media (corona virus). Seeing is believing, right? Consider the things you cannot see at first sight: The decades-long exposure of the public to asbestos, or the radiation of Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, 1986), Fukushima Dai-ichi (Japan, 2011)... catastrophes with global effects even when the news cycle moves on and people think the issue is solved - far from eye, far from heart. Sometimes science needs felt ages to deliver the proof for what common sense already knew - nicotine isn't healthy - which only the brave dared to say publicly risking to be sued to death by tobacco corporations.

In today's world topics may have changed, not the patterns: There are big tech's interests exposing us, the people, to technological experiments. Licence holders receive huge bonuses when advocating for new technologies - would they, if there was not a big amount of money in play? - while the overwhelming rest of us is nothing but exposed to these experiments.

So until the critical mass is reached many people understandably feel like guinea pigs of big-tech and their interest in profits. All I'm saying is, give health a chance: So for your health's sake, keep a critical mind, as it's better to be safe than sorry.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher

Why We Don't Follow Science Anymore

This article was also published on:
smerconish.com/news/2020/2/4/why-we-dont-follow-science-anymore

Today many people ask: Why people don't follow science anymore? Why nowadays science is hard put to convince the people of its findings? Why more and more people don't listen to the facts anymore? Why are scientists losing their once undisputed authority? Why did facts lose their appeal?
Naturally, you can blame it all on (social) media, propaganda wars, politization and polarization of society etc. But that was too easy.

Recently I was stunned by BBC's Nobel Minds Debate, wherein invited Nobel Prize Laureates complainingly compared our times with the days of Galileo Galilei ca. 500 years ago in that sense, that then as now science has been disregarded.

You can now argue, that this comparison brought forward in this Nobel Prize Laureates debate is a really poor one, since Galileo Galilei wasn't recognized at all by then ruling elites other than today's leading scientists - Nobel Prize Laureates. But the point I want to make goes further.
I want to call your attention to ask why nowadays there is so much resentment among large parts of society against following science, even in the face of science relentlessly telling people being endangered by climate change.

Given that people were following science for long, even into war with the latest technology - as science financially in liaisons with the military always had a big stake in war games - why today people leave the flock of science believers and scientists lose their authority? When analyzing current developments, soon we get to one of the most powerful tools of democratization: social media.
Now more than ever before, via social media people are given a voice, enabled to organize themselves and group easily and quickly to challenge existing authorities.

But there is more to consider: These democratization processes are flanked by more and more people experiencing being squashed like lemons by multinational corporations whose profits skyrocket while large parts of society become impoverished and science does little against these developments.
It's hardly surprising, that people increasingly perceive scientists as underlings of multinational corporations, as agents of keeping consumerism going, continuously inventing new technology supposedly for the people while making the rich uber-rich and the majority population bleeding out financially.

Also IT-specialists have increasingly come under fire for eagerly working on firing more and more people by their inventions, since IT-specialists create algorithms making more and more jobs obsolete without creating equivalent jobs for the people whose jobs they killed, but cynically arguing: We only enable the people to feel free and follow their creativity. Creating jobs galore one cannot live on, even when working multiple low-paid jobs, is only massaging jobless figures to fool the public, eventually leading to the rise of the working poor.

This job-cutting mechanism called rationalization, streamlining under globalization is sold as "future of mankind" ignoring evermore working people dropping out of the job market, as their workforce isn't needed anymore. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that those mechanisms - making evermore people's workforce obsolete, disadvantaging large parts of society - are a "perfect" formula for raising social tensions right up to revolution, if unaccompanied by a sufficient unconditional basic income.

In times of emancipation and democratization - rather than asking, if there is intelligent life in outer space etc. - scientists were supposed to ask these questions: Do scientists intelligently take enough action to tackle global inequality here on Earth? Does the class of scientists take enough action against the accumulation of capital, in the hands of a very few corporations battling for planet-domination, undermining democratic institutions increasingly? Does academia invent technologies creating jobs the people can live on rather than inventing technologies enabling multinational corporations to kill well-paid jobs en masse?

Today too many scientists and technicians appear negligent of the bread-and-butter issues and the hardships of the people. So many people's perception therefore is, too many scientists and technicians - once highly regarded professions - are in cahoots with big business concerns, killing jobs galore, working against the people rather than for the people being entangled in another type of war, an asymmetrical warfare, a trade war multinational corporations wage globally against the people, against civilians, in a civilization declining.

As long as science appears to be in liaisons with reckless elites rather than siding with the people, science has an image problem and the people's reluctance against blindly following science grows. People followed science for ages when perceiving science and technology as improving the people's living standards.

Scientists and technicians are supposed to improve their battered image of being stuck in their ivory towers, following their curiosity only and working on luxury problems for big business concern. As long as science appears to be taken up in complex calculations while lacking empathy for the people's concerns and forgetting about humanity and its problems, academia will lose the people's respect entirely.

All this we have to factor in when analyzing today's complex situation of science losing support of society increasingly. New devices whatsoever need to benefit the people first, only then - as side effect - it has to serve big business concern. This understanding of social responsibility on top-level has been lost by corporate governance appearing more or less moralless. Company owners shifted responsibility to "nameless shareholders" in a society with shareholder value as only value left.

Therefore the people's faith in scientific facts and in science itself wanes. Today the process, once started with automation (machine breakers), isn't about bringing relief to all households by washing machines anymore - what eliminated washers - but about pushing people out of the market by digitization threatening every profession. That creates a dangerous cocktail. Growing social inequality is an ignited stick of dynamite for any society (dynamite's inventor, Alfred Nobel).

Why is all this important? History has shown, when people were robbed of their livelihoods by certain developments, demagogues have an easy job to recruit people for their wicked ideologies promising an all-too-easy solution. So wasn't it in the self-interest of science to work for the people rather than appearing as accomplice of corporations working against the people?

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher