#another computer mouse animation aha

[kiwidotcom]

[biologyweeps]

Okay, what's the deal with people thinking EMFs are bad? Like, this pregnancy book I'm reading is saying I should avoid phone (and laptop) overuse, not for the sake of my mental health, or that maybe I should get some fresh air, but because the non-ionizing radiation it emits i somehow bad for babies, born or unborn. I looked up the study it cited (2002, Li et al.). I'm not great at science googling and I couldn't access the whole paper, but it seems to me that correlation is not causation. :/

(sorry, EMF anon again) – both sketchy and apparently legit-but-I-can’t-really-tell wed articles keeping citing the same guy, plus a bunch of secondary studies that still don’t go into HOW, exactly, EMFs are supposed to mess you up enough to cause things ranging from ADHD to weight gain. Like, literally the most it can do is heat. I’m pretty sure you get hotter in the shower than from talking on the phone. Am I missing something? Are people just looking for a scapegoat for “modern” illnesses?

I’m assuming you read this study? (which is also stuck behind a paywall for me, which is…not great. Make Science Free, you fucks)

Now, the concerns about EMFs are basically as old as human use of electricity, and concerns about it specifically being bad for babies are about as old, too. As a result there have been a bunch of studies, and have been for a while. Back in the day of cathode-ray tube TV/Computer sets, people were particular worried about that, resulting in reviews like this, this, this, and this. These three reviews are all from the early nineties, and go ‘we don’t have a lot of data on this, but what we do have says no. However since data is so scant: more research please’

of course ‘we need more data’ doesn’t mean ‘the thing is totally happening’, it just literally means ‘we don’t have enough data to confidently say it doesn’t happen’. Mind, one of the reviews explicitly mentions that if EMFs were an issue, then the fact that humans have been using increasing amounts of electricity in the 20th century onward, we should see solid correlation by now. We don’t.

Now let’s skip forward a decade. Cathode ray screens are phasing out fast, personal handheld devices are getting more common. That’s when that initial study takes place. Now two things. One is that the study says ‘possible correlation’ and that only between maximum field strength above a certain threshold, the other is that they say it’s unlikely that other factors can explain this. That’s something i’m generally very weary off, because the amount of things that can fuck with your numbers is staggering. 

For example: let’s say your main source of EMF exposure is because you’re living underneath a powerline. Your daily EMF exposure is high, you have a miscarriage. The study now says ‘aha, the high EMF increased the risk!’ but let’s consider: maybe you’re living underneath a powerline because the estate was cheaper, and you’re poor. Being poor is a KNOWN negative impact factor on virtually all health issues. The stress of having to constantly worry about how you’re going to pay your bills already isn’t healthy, and living in the US, your entire access to health care is likely worse.

Which brings me to another point: the study takes on only women in the San Francisco area, and from one large health care provider. That makes sense because getting people from all over the world was way beyond this study’s limitations. However, it introduces a factor of ‘is there something about the locality of the place that makes it look like EMFs play a role’. How was the spread of ages/ethnicities? Were those factor removed during statistical analysis? (I would like to tell you, but I can’t, because paywall. Again: Make Science Free, you fucks). Also the measurement was only taken for one 24h period, meaning that there’s a high likelihood that things were missed, even if activity levels were similar outside of that 24h period. 

All those things are things I cannot judge if I cannot see the paper, and those things are also a reason why meta-analysis and reviews are important. Especially meta-analysis, since the goal here is to grab a bunch of different studies and view them together, to try and get rid of limitations like the abovementioned ones.

to wit: this review came out just one year earlier than Li et.al and basically goes ‘far we can see, we don’t see effects’. This review from three years later says the same. 

Let’ advance another decade, and move things close to current times. Cathode ray screens are basically gone, instead everyone bounces around with a handheld device of whatever form. Studies like this , this and this (big cohort study from France) all indicate that no, it’s not, as does this mouse study. though again: mousy =/= human, but since a lot of the ‘oh no it’s bad for you’ studies run on chicken embryos, I thought i’d include an animal one. Here’s a chicken one, though it should be noted, this one is investigating the specific effects of MRIs so we’re talking about a very particular, very strong magnetic field and the study does very much say that it’s about MRI avoidance.

So basically, after a good twenty years and change of studies, and reviews and analysis, people are still going ‘doesn’t look like it’ and that’s what I’m going with. 

Why does it stick around though? Well, one is fear. People worry about doing something wrong, and therefore hurting the embryo/fetus. So overly-cautious reactions say ‘best to avoid anything that could be, theoretically, unhealthy. Pair that with the fact that electricity as a whole is relatively new, and its various applications even more, people get a little…antsy. 

Pile onto that that the word ‘radiation’ already gets people running for the hills as is, and you got a great recipe for lowkey panic among prospective parents.