In the 1950s and 60s, scientists and medical researchers realized something that would greatly annoy many people: smoking could kill you. This truth was very inconvenient for both people addicted to tobacco and the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry launched a “denial campaign” to delay and obfuscate any legal or societal changes that would impact their revenues and profits. They spent enormous amounts of money on PR campaigns to influence both consumers and government officials, but the one thing they could not change was the truth. Smoking kills. This was the first inconvenient truth, but it was only inconvenient for the tobacco industry and those who were addicted to tobacco.
In the 1980’s scientists raised the alarm about an even greater threat to the health and safety of the general population as well to the world’s environment. At first, this truth was readily accepted. President George Bush (senior) in his 1988 campaign promised, “We will fight the Greenhouse Effect with the Whitehouse Effect.” Manmade global climate change was the second inconvenient truth. It too threatened the livelihood and income of a vested industry: the fossil fuel industry. Like the tobacco industry had done earlier, the fossil fuel industry attempted to deny the science and funded great PR campaigns targeting politicians to ensure no action was taken to deal with this truth. Global climate change is far more inconvenient to the general population than the truth that smoking kills: virtually everyone in the West benefits from cheap, subsidized energy obtained through burning fossil fuels. No one benefited from smoking. The second inconvenient truth is very inconvenient, so much so that most people do not want to address it at all. This apathy does not bode well for what we need to do about the third inconvenient truth.
It was not long ago that no one had heard of Wi-Fi (as it was originally termed), simply because it is a made up name with no inherent meaning. (It was a play on the words Hi-Fi). But we all know wifi today: it is the way we connect to the ubiquitous wireless networks surrounding us everywhere we go. This is a great convenience: we can always stay in touch – cell phones, laptops, anything with the prefix “i” works via the wireless communication networks surrounding us and penetrating us. As enticing and empowering as cheap fossil fuel, the use of wifi and other wireless networks has enhanced life throughout the world. By one estimate over 5 billion people have a cell phone: even the poor in Africa have the ability to stay in touch with their friends and their customers via cell phones.
If only those scientists would just stay out of the way, we could enjoy this state of affairs blissfully. But, scientists do love to study things, and many began to study several mysterious effects in our environment and in our bodies: from the death of pollinators like the bees and disappearing birds, to clusters of cancers in humans. These scientists began to realize that the ocean of wireless frequencies that we are now bathing the planet in is far from benign. These invisible packets of energy can and do affect our cells: not just our cells but the cells of any living being.
On 31 May 2011, the World Health Organization stated that mobile phone use may possibly represent a long-term health risk and may be carcinogenic, based on an increased risk of glioma, which is a malignant brain cancer. 
Cancer is a disease that may take years or even decades to manifest. It begins with microscopic changes in the DNA of our cells. It can be difficult to pin down the exact trigger for such a small, but lethal change. Scientists rely on correlations to point the direction for their studies. One correlation has arisen several times in many locations: the proximity of a cell phone tower increases the rate of cancer. It is important to state: correlation is not causation. It is also important to note that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence in science. Anecdotes and correlations are not proof of a hypothesis. However, such factors can point researchers to look deeper into why these anecdotes and correlations arise. If wireless transmissions could cause cancer, or any other health problem, how could they do so?
That question has been asked and some answers are starting to appear. We have known for a long time that electromagnetic fields can heal us. Doctors routinely employ a technique called Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Therapy to heal bones that won’t heal on their own. By applying a pulsating magnetic field that varies at 7 hertz, the osteoblasts in the bone are stimulated and start to lay down new bone. Different tissues have different frequencies which they respond to. We know that certain frequencies can heal the body: we also know that certain frequencies can harm the body.  And we are starting to understand why this happens.
(While it is beyond our scope to go deeply into the science of how energy can affect us at a cellular level, a brief example is enlightening: the pulsation of a magnetic field can affect a cell’s membrane voltage potential. Normally, a cell’s membrane has a potential of about -90 millivolts, and this is sufficient to allow the cytosol (the cell’s inner juices) to remain inside and keep bad guys outside. If that voltage drops below -50 mv, nasty things happen and the cell no longer works properly. An applied pulsating magnetic field can “pump up” the membrane potential, restoring its healthy level, allowing the cell to function normally again. Different cells, with their different sizes, require different frequencies to be affected. And, unfortunately, some frequencies can undermine the cell membrane’s potential.)
The debate is currently raging: does the persistent, 24 by 7 presence of wireless radiation bathing everyone today cause harm or is it harmless? The documentary Resonance – Beings of Frequency by James Russell hopes to raise this issue to the forefront of people’s attention as much as Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth did for manmade global climate change: (Members of MyYogaOnline/Gaiam TV can watch Resonance here.) In this documentary, evidence is compiled pointing to the dangers of the wireless energy all around us. Unfortunately, much of the evidence is anecdotal and some evidence is based on correlation, not causation. These can be compelling but they are not proof. Fortunately, not all evidence presented is so weak. There are some good scientific reasons offered for why we should be concerned.
Authors of a 2009 meta-analysis of 11 studies from peer-reviewed journals concluded that cell phone usage for at least ten years “approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (‘ipsilateral’) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.” 
The dangers of cell phone usage is much higher in children and teenagers because of the thinness of their skulls. Safety tests for cell phones have set a limit to the power that a cell phone can transmit, to protect the brain. These tests assume that we all have the same thickness of skull, and that thickness was taken from an averaging of thousands of army personnel. Unfortunately, skull thickness is just as variable as hat sizes and dental patterns. Young children and teenagers have skulls considerably thinner than the average USA Marine, but the safety tests do not consider these younger, thinner skulls when developing the safety limits. Children being given cell phones as early as 8 years old have a much higher risk of developing brain cancer than a soldier in his 20’s.
Certain countries, including France, have warned against the use of cell phones especially by minors due to health risk uncertainties.
There are large vested interests in the wireless industry who would find proof that wireless energies are harmful to humans and our environment to be very inconvenient. But we too would find such truth highly inconvenient. Imagine having to turn the clock back to the days before we were wirelessly connected? Imagine giving up your cell phone, your laptop’s wireless Internet connectivity, the “smarts” of your household devices … Modern living has become predicated upon this ubiquitous ability to interconnect. Modern social norms have evolved to depend upon it: social media, text messaging, information retrieval. Your cell phone is far more than a telephone: it is a movie camera, a library, the Yellow Pages, a stereo system, a wallet or purse, a note pad and tape machine, a post office, a store where you can buy or sell things, and so much more … all in the palm of your hands. Giving all this up would be highly inconvenient!
And yet, is life truly better today than 20 year ago? Along with the advantages of cellular freedom has come a loss of being able to disconnect, of having down time, of anonymity when desired, of leaving the office when you leave the office. It should be as easy as just turning off your devices or leaving them at home. But that is like saying people addicted to tobacco should “just quit smoking!” Addictions are not so easily dropped. And, there is no doubt, we have become addicted to our wireless world. Like the tobacco addict with his pack of cigarettes bulging his shirt pocket who boasts, “I can quit anytime I want,” we would like to believe we could turn it all off if we wanted to, we just don’t want to.
One study showed a “40% increased risk for gliomas (brain cancer) in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10?year period).” 
In the early days, when some scientists realized smoking kills and mankind is changing our climate through the burning of fossil fuels, there was a lot of uncertainty in the science. But there was enough evidence to continue investigating. When the vested industries, worried about their livelihood, woke up to the risks, not to people but to their profits, they jumped on the science bandwagon, not to find out what was really going on but to try to dissuade people from looking closely at the truth. We can not rely on the wireless industry, their PR companies and the government officials they lobby to find out the truth. We need independent organizations to do the work. We need our governments to free themselves from the vested industry’s associations and lobbyist and allow our own scientists to freely look into the science behind the anecdotes and correlations. We need to know the truth.
And if the truth is inconvenient? Do we have to turn back the hands of time and undo the progress that liberated the poor of Africa? Do we have to give up our new wireless existence? Not necessarily. The alternative to using fossil fuels is not to give up cheap energy, but to find another way to access energy – a way that is safe for our environment as well as economy. The same should be possible with wireless communication. There may be another way to communicate that doesn’t bathe us all in harmful radiation. We know that many frequencies can heal us. The earth herself bathes us in her energies with no harm at all, indeed we benefit greatly from her touch. How do we learn from nature? That is what our scientists should be funded to find out.
The levels of DNA damage were significantly increased following exposure to mobile phone radiation in the listen, dialed and dialing modes. These results have important implications for the safety of inappropriate mobile phone use by males of reproductive age and also suggest a simple preventive measure: Keeping mobile phones as far away from our body as possible, not only during conversations but during ‘dialed’ and ‘dialing’ operation modes. … mobile phones should be kept at a safe distance from our body even during standby operation. Furthermore, the protective role of melatonin suggests that it may be a promising pharmacological candidate for preventing mobile phone use-related reproductive impairments.
In the meantime, what can we do to protect ourselves and our children? Start by becoming educated. Watch the video Resonance – Beings of Frequency. Read the book Disconnect by Devra Davis, a scientist who founded the Environmental Health Trust. Learn about the dangers to children and teenagers from cell phone use and do not give them one, or if you must give them one, teach them how to use it properly. When you use your phone, use the ear buds – do not put it up to your ear. If you don’t have ear buds, use the speakerphone option. If that option is not available, if you must place the phone by your brain, keep it the recommended one inch away from the ear (turn the volume up, don’t put it closer.) Cell phone, iPad and laptop use may affect melatonin levels, so check with your doctor about the idea of taking supplemental melatonin (it is a powerful anti-cancer substance the body naturally produces.) Another great creator of powerful magnetic fields is your hair dryer! And you point it right at your brain. If you must use a hair dryer, keep it as far from your head as you can, even it means it takes a few more minutes to dry your hair. When you use a laptop computer, have it unplugged from the wall while you use it (and plug it in to recharge when you are not near it.) Keep your bedroom a wifi free zone! No laptops, iPads, or cell phones near your bed at night. Keep your cell phone turned off until you need it (people who try to call you can leave you a message! Remember, not so long ago people had to write to communicate with each other. We don’t need to be instantly reachable.)
Most people are not electro-sensitive. You may be one of the lucky ones that have no problem being bathed in the constant wifi stream. Unfortunately, some people are greatly affected, and they need to take greater precautions. But again, cancer takes years to manifest. It takes only a little bit of thought to reduce the greatest risk factors. In the meantime, let’s ask our elected representatives to represent us, to fund research into the real risks we are facing and to develop alternatives that are safer for everyone.
- — “IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS”. World Health Organization.
- — See Energy Medicine by Dr. James Oschmann
- — See Khurana, VG et al (2009). “Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long term epidemiologic data”. Surgical Neurology 72 (3): 205-214. doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2009.01.019. PMID 19328536.
- — See Brian Rohan (2 January 2008). “France warns against excessive mobile phone use”. Reuters.
- — “IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS”. World Health Organization.
- — See Mobile phone radiation induces mode-dependent DNA damage in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line: a protective role of melatonin by Liu C et al in International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2013 Nov;89(11):993-1001.