Another reason to restrict children's access to smartphones

Letter to the Chair of the Education Committee on 19th May 2024

I recently listened to the debate led by Miriam Cates MP on the harms caused to young people by their use of smartphones and social media. I have also read many of the pieces of written evidence submitted to the “Screen Time - Impacts on education and wellbeing” inquiry carried out by the committee, which you chair. 

While I fully support the aims of Miriam Cates to reform the the use of smartphones and access to social media for children, I was astounded at the assumption of the vast majority of contributors both to this debate and to the inquiry, that the only issue is the way children interact with screens and the harmful effects of social media content, with no reference to the fact that wireless signals from all wireless technology can have a detrimental impact on cells in the body, leading to physical, neurological and emotional harm (please see the quote in bold, below). 

I have spent the last four years researching and writing about the health effects of the wireless signals emitted by so much around us, whether by smartphones, smart meters, Wifi, phone masts or other devices, with more recent articles being endorsed by the scientists whose work I have summarised.

There are now thousands of studies carried out over the last few decades showing the biological effects of the non-ionising (or radio-frequency) radiation (RFR) emitted by all wireless technology. Unfortunately, the Government is in denial about this because they follow the safety exposure guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are based only on heating (thermal) effects that appear within an hour or less. 

Flawed safety exposure guidelines

These guidelines do not protect against effects that appear below the heating threshold, nor do they protect against long-term exposure. A critique of these guidelines with its 14 flawed assumptions was made recently by International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Added to this, it is known that ICNIRP members have received (undeclared) funding from the telecoms industry and this has influenced the outcomes of research they are involved in, as indicated by the Court of Appeal in Turin.

The critique by ICBE-EMF  published in October 2022, is highly readable and a contains a summary of the research, stating: "experimental studies at lower doses (than the ICNIRP safety exposure limits) and for longer durations of exposure demonstrated cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological effects, increased permeability of the blood brain barrier, and sperm damage. Multiple robust epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors and these are supported by clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types (glial cell and Schwann cell) from animal studies.”

Children are at disproportionate risk compared to adults

Written evidence submitted by neuroscientist, Dr Sarah Starkey to the Early Years Inquiry in December 2017, emphasises that "Children are at increased risk compared to adults (as) they absorb radiation more easily, have greater cell division and their bodies are still developing.” She provides "evidence from human and animal studies for effects on development during pregnancy, effects on children and young people, on brain development, fertility and increased risk of cancers.” Examples discussed include ADHD, DNA damage, reduced memory and attention and the alteration of electrical brain activity. Dr. Starkey emphasises that the fact that "effects are seen in animal studies, indicates that the radiofrequency signals themselves can have adverse effects, and it is not just (behavioural effects from) children or young people accessing social media/internet through mobile devices, or time spent looking at screens.”  

Policies do not reflect the evidence-base

Dr Starkey states that “current local and national government policies do not reflect the evidence-base.” These policies come mainly from PHE advice, which is based on an assessment of the evidence by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) in 2012.  This has been shown to be inaccurate, with evidence omitted, conclusions made which did not reflect the evidence available, incorrect statements made and conflicts of interests apparent.  She discusses the lack of interventions in the UK and makes policy suggestions. 

More recently, the COSMOS study, which found no link between heavy phone use and cancer, has been found to be compromised for similar reasons as the AGNIR report and serious flaws were found in its study design.   Update: a detailed critique of the Cosmos study was published on 21st June 2024. 

Of great relevance to the Education Department is the result of an Upper Tribunal Hearing in 2022, when parents won a 5-year legal battle against 2 local authorities to have their child accommodated in school for Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). More information about this EHS is here. In my experience, this complaint can develop when the threshold of radio-frequency radiation tolerance is reached. 

As schools usually have ubiquitous  WIFI, could the symptoms of as yet unrecognised EHS be contributing to low attendance at school?

The Macron Commission

In France, President Macron is currently conducting a Commission to investigate the physical and mental effects on children and teenagers of EMF (electromagnetic field) emitting devices and screens. One person giving evidence is David Gee, Visiting Fellow of the Centre for Pollution Research and Policy, Brunel University, London and previously Senior Adviser to the European Environment Agency. I am attaching David’s chapters from the French volume, Humanité et numérique, edited by Servane Mouton, a neuroscientist, who is also co-chair of President Macron’s Commission.

But why hasn’t our Government instigated such a commission? Instead, advice to MPs (p. 20) is as follows “5G conspiracy theories raise concerns that the impact of 5G has not been sufficiently tested to prove it is safe, and that there is risk to human health from radiation from 5G waves”. This “advice” comes from Full Fact  which is funded primarily by Big Tech and staffed to a large extent by former public sector workers or ex-reporters from left-wing media.``' In my opinion, these particular “conspiracy theories” are absolutely correct.

Further information

These websites give full information about research on the health harms of RFR: https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/, https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html,  https://ehtrust.org/science/ and in the UK,  phiremedical.org whose consensus statement received thousands of signatures. 

I hope the above will be of some assistance. I have contact details for some of the scientists mentioned, should you need them.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian Jamieson

MA Hons, PGCE, PGDip. Couns.Pysch. MBACP