The limits are of great importance to economically influential companies

Screen use has become a controversial topic in recent years. Numerous books have been published on the potential harmful effects of screens. One of the latest international bestsellers is Jonathan Haidt's* book The Anxious Generation (2024). In The Anxious Generation, Haidt explores the increased use of screens as a probable cause of deteriorating mental health, especially among young people. Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at the Stern School of Business at New York University. He was named one of the world's leading thinkers by Foreign Policy magazine and Prospect magazine.

Devra Davis is an American epidemiologist and toxicologist who has had a distinguished academic career and is now focusing on the risks of electromagnetic fields. On 7 November 2024, she visited Norway ahead of the launch of the Norwegian edition of her book Disconnect and gave a lecture. In Disconnect, she provides another purely biophysical explanation for the harmful effects of screen use: the non-ionising radiation from our handheld devices.

The subject is controversial. The idea that non-ionising radiation may have an impact on public health is not welcomed with open arms by society at large. Criticising the use of screens is also an attack on a technology that we love and that many companies depend on. Even for Jonathan Haidt, who did not touch on the topic of radiation in his book, ‘dealing with the criticism has become a full-time job’.

The guidelines for limit values are outdated and have been shown to be exceeded

During Devra Davis' lecture in Norway, Davis criticised the current guidelines for exposure limits, arguing that they are outdated.

If today's radiation exposure limits are not strict enough, shouldn't we at least be able to trust that today's phones do not exceed them?

In response to this question, Davis referred to findings from the Canadian television company CBS (2017) and the Chicago Tribune (2019), which have shown that many phones exceed the limits when tested in real-life situations close to the body.

Video of the CBS report from 2017:

In addition, Davis explained that her organisation, the Environmental Health Trust, had revealed that the US regulatory authority, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), had secretly tested phones itself in 2019, at the same time as the Chicago Tribune published its article on mobile phones exceeding radiation limits. The FCC also found that radiation exposure limits were exceeded.

But the FCC withheld this information from the public. According to Davis, this is a little-known fact that has not yet made the news. And none of these revelations have resulted in any changes.
 

US court ruling: FCC must explain how current guidelines protect against harmful health and environmental effects

The Environmental Health Trust, together with Children's Health Defense (CHD), also won a court case against the FCC in 2021. The judge ordered the FCC to review the literature on non-ionising radiation so that new science could be taken into account in their regulatory guidelines. Read more: Court decision. However, one mistake was made, Davis noted: The court did not give the FCC a deadline, so the court ruling has not led to any changes, and it may take a series of lawsuits to hold the FCC accountable.

Both organisations are deeply critical of the FCC's claim that the limits or guidelines would protect against harmful health and environmental effects of radiation from 5G and previous generations of mobile phone systems. They filed a lawsuit after the FCC announced in December 2020 that its guidelines, established in 1996, would still be sufficient to protect against the harmful effects of radiation from 5G and other modern wireless technologies. As grounds for their criticism, the two organisations have submitted approximately 11,000 pages of research findings showing that harmful effects occur at levels below the FCC's 1996 values. In addition, scientists, doctors and affected individuals have submitted testimony about the harmful effects of radiation at levels below the current FCC guidelines.

The court found that the FCC had failed to explain how its 1996 values protect against the harmful effects of radiation (radiofrequency radiation or microwave radiation). This means that the FCC's decision that the guidelines are still adequate is ‘capricious, arbitrary and not based on science’ according to the court, which in turn violates the US Administrative Procedures Act.

According to the court, the analysis from another authority, the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA), on which the FCC based its decision, was not evidence-based either. It was flawed and did not meet the requirements imposed on authorities. The court also rejected the FCC's attempt to portray it as consent when other authorities had not expressed an opinion.

Regarding the thousand comments submitted to the court and extensive evidence of harmful effects from scientists, medical organisations, municipalities and individuals who developed illnesses after exposure to radiation, as well as the 11,000 pages of scientific results showing harmful effects, the court found that the FCC had failed to respond to the criticism in a scientific manner. This further contributed to the perception that the FCC's decision to maintain its guidelines was arbitrary.

Furthermore, the court noted that the FCC had completely failed to acknowledge and respond to the evidence presented regarding harmful effects on the environment and referred in this context to, among other things, a letter from the US Department of the Interior expressing concern that radiation could affect migratory birds and stating that the FCC's guidelines were outdated.

The court referred the decision back to the FCC, which is thus urged to better explain and scientifically substantiate how its guidelines would provide adequate protection against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation:

“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”

One can only conclude that economically influential companies are opposed to consumers and the general public being informed about the risks. For them, such information poses a risk of reduced profitability and lower turnover. The limit values are of great economic and strategic importance to the telecom/IT, military and electrical industries. These industries have a major influence on policy. For example, the American association of mobile phone manufacturers has gone to court to withdraw proposals for basic information to consumers about simple precautions developed by Berkeley and San Francisco. History shows that the greater the economic interests involved, the longer it takes to take protective measures. Parallels can be drawn with the tobacco industry's decades-long opposition to the regulation of tobacco use.