The connection escapes both industry and the authorities that are supposed to watch that those technological developments are not harmful to human health. What if they are wrong? What if there is a mechanism by which technological radiation, even below the threshold where it becomes ionizing and starts heating up tissues, can influence physiology?
Andrew Goldsworthy believes that there is such a mechanism. Those low intensity, pulsed, electromagnetic emissions that have grown into a veritable crescendo in the last few decades do indeed disturb the communication of cells - and specifically the neurons of a developing brain.
Is there a solution?
While Goldsworthy, in his excellent article, suggests a plausible mechanism for how the damage is done, what about a solution. Can we do anything - short of turning back the clock of progress in mobile communication - to make the technology compatible with human health? I believe there is.
With high probability, it is not the presence of radiation as such that is damaging. We have been exposed to natural background radiation for millions of years. What is different now is the addition of what I call the AC/DC effect .
It has been found that the effect of radiation on calcium channels of cells is not only present in mobile phone and other wireless communication technology, but also in technical radiation emanating from power lines and household appliances.
The common denominator between the two is a low frequency pulsing of the field. I call it the AC/DC effect because it isn't present in direct current, but it is in alternating current, where electricity is pulsed at a constant 50 and in some areas 60 cycles per second. In communications technologies, the effect isn't present in analog (old time radio and TV, and first generation mobile phone) technology, but it is present in digital mobile technologies. The constant pulse rate in digital communications is what's called a "packet frequency". Information is not transmitted in a constant stream but in little packets of data, about 200 every second, which establishes a constant 200 cycles per second on/off frequency, something cells can "feel" and can react to.
Randomizing the low frequency pulsing
Admittedly this is somewhat speculative, but if the effect on cellular calcium channels is present in radiation that is pulsed at low frequencies, and if it is only effective in certain windows of amplitude (as explained by Goldsworthy below) then it would make sense that the effect could be eliminated if we were to randomize the packet frequency of transmission. Packets of information transmitted at random intervals would not form a low frequency on/off signal recognizable by living cells. The technological radiation would still be present, but it could blend into the background. True, we'd still have the problem of having a much "louder" background noise of electromagnetic frequencies, but at least there would not be a constant low frequency component that is recognizable by cells and that could disturb their working order.
If you are working in mobile communications, I would like to hear from you, whether you think that such randomization of the signal would be technically possible. Also, if you have access to some of the bigwigs in that field ... tell them about the idea of randomized packet frequencies in mobile communication. Let's see if this cannot be turned around before it is too late. We are already losing a whole generation. Let's not lose our future.