# The Science Policy Gap

## Reflections on the Dance between Science and Policy with Emphasis on Electrosmog

Magda Havas

    My research studies the biological effects of environmental pollutants. More specifically, I examine how scientific information is produced, controlled, and distributed, and reflect on the fabrication of misinformation and doubt that delays policy decisions, especially in the realm of electromagnetic pollution.
    The aim of my research is to understand how environmental pollutants interact with ecosystems and how they affect humans, animals and plants. Based on the information I gather through my research and that of my colleagues, I work to educate the public and to influence policy to reduce emissions and exposures. The field I work in is controversial, because governments on their own are not adequately protecting environmental and human health, however I enjoy it because this is where we need clarity.
    Another aim of my work is to share what I have learned with university students, who are training towards a career in environmental sciences or in related fields. I share with them my knowledge of how to evaluate scientific studies; how to interpret and present data; and how to do proper science.
    While science is both a body of knowledge and a method, here I will discuss to the method. Science is one of the most powerful and reliable methods that humans have to understand the nature of objective reality. Science cannot be used to assess subjective reality such as values or aesthetics, as these fall within the realm of philosophy, nor can it address questions about God, as these are the domain of religion. Unlike religion, science questions previous assertions and, as more information becomes available, replaces them with more encompassing explanations, theories and laws. Consequently, scientific information, and hence our understanding of the physical world, is constantly changing. Like philosophy, science relies on logic, but also adds observation and experimentation to its tool kit and it is these that make science so powerful. Science requires an environment that values openness, free exchange of ideas (publications), sincerity (about the inherent flaws of a particular body of research); and fairness (when it comes to giving credit to previous investigators or evaluating the research of others).
    According to McNaughton (McNaughton, 1999), “good science can be identified readily by four tests, each of which can be unequivocally answered by a simple yes or no... Specifically does the process follow the scientific method? Was the process performed in an objective manner? Are the results repeatable? Have the results been published in a peer-reviewed publication?” These questions were designed to help adjudicators determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in legal cases.
    For the scientific method to be considered good science, the experimental design has to be well- thought out, potential confounding variables need to be addressed, conclusions need to be appropriate for the hypotheses that were tested and the data that were gathered, and caveats need to be expressed (Parsons and Wright, 2015). If these conditions are not met, the science is deemed bad science.
    Two additional terms, “sound science”, and “junk science”, are now frequently used in the policy arena by parties with economic interests in the outcome of a political decision. Sound science is used to promote studies in their favor and junk science to discredit studies that disagree with positions favourable to the industry (Parsons and Wright, 2015). Neither of these terms is necessary, as good and bad science is all that matters.
    Two important characteristics of scientific measurements are precision (repeatability of a measurement) and accuracy (proximity to the “real” value). To use darts as an example, the closer you get to the bull’s eye the greater your accuracy, and the closer the multiple darts are to each other, the greater your precision. Darts clumped together but far from the bull’s eye have high precision and low accuracy.
    The degree of precision decreases as we move from physics to chemistry to biology to environmental toxicology, in part, due to the complexity of the material being examined. An electronic circuit board will act the same way every time, but a living creature will not, and the more complex the organism the more complex and variable its response to a stimulus will be. Science consists of factual information followed by interpretation and it is this interpretation of scientific data that is discipline-dependent. Scientists used to dealing with highly precise measurements may misinterpret or dismiss data that are inherently more variable, leading to a hierarchy of arrogance from the physical to the biological to the social sciences and from reductionist to holistic scientists. This varying degree of comfort with differing amounts of imprecision leads to some of the scientific conflicts reported in the literature.
    In the field of electrosmog toxicology, most of those denying the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation are physicists, who may feel uncomfortable with the degree of variability inherent in epidemiological/toxicological studies and label such studies as being “poor” science. Also, while physicists may know a lot about the electromagnetic spectrum and its characteristics, they are seldom experts in biology, and consequently their opinion is worth relatively little in this regard. In a court of law a physicist would not be asked a question about health but the media seems to think that as long as someone has a Ph.D. behind their name, they are “experts” and their opinion is equally valid irrespective of the question asked.
    University scientists are required to “publish or perish,” so it is critical they share information with other scientists through their peer-reviewed publications. They freely share their views with their students and colleagues and they are able to provide interviews and expert testimony without getting permission from their superiors. This is a culture of academic freedom and is fundamental to the university culture.
    Corporate scientists, on the other hand, sign confidentiality agreements since they work for a company where secrecy provides a financial advantage and loyalty to the employer is highly valued. Those who do go against the norm and criticize the actions of their employer or release unsanctioned information are called whistle blowers and often suffer the consequences of their actions, no matter how correct they may be.
    In between these two extremes are government scientists whose findings may pass through several political filters before they are made public and who must obtain permission for media interviews, which is often denied or closely regulated by government public relations personnel. For the past two decades, university scientists have been increasingly encouraged to get a greater proportion of their research funded by corporations rather than governments or foundations. Supported by these corporate contracts, university scientists may find themselves conflicted when it comes to the type of research conducted, how data are analyzed and when/ what information is released. Consequently, conflict of interest is becoming a great concern among editors of scientific journals. While all sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest must be declared prior to publication, this does not guarantee that the scientific information provided is complete and accurate, and that no information has been withheld that is potentially damaging to the funder. So a solution to deal with funding shortages has lead to an issue of confidence, conflict of interest and possible bias in data reporting among scientists including those from universities.
    To understand science it is important to have an appreciation for the philosophy of science, and here two figures play a critical role: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
    Thomas Kuhn studied scientific advancements and recognized that the prevailing understanding was that science advances by small increments. This is the “evolutionary” process. Each step takes us further up the ladder of understanding and provides us with a broader view as we approach the “truth.” The common metaphor is that science is “standing on the shoulders of giants.” While some science does advance in this manner, Kuhn recognized a different pattern, a “revolutionary process” that is more far-reaching and profound. He discovered that major advances are made with sudden upheavals in scientific thinking, which he referred to as a “paradigm shift” and discussed in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1970).
    A paradigm refers to a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
    A paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another driven by agents of change.
    Scientific paradigm shifts are based on breakthroughs that overturn existing scientific thought and provide an alternative and more inclusive explanation of what is going on. The Ptolemaic geocentric concept that the earth is the center of the universe has been replaced by the heliocentric concept that the earth revolves around the sun. Those who proposed or supported this new concept were at risk of being put to death or being excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Today they are either shunned or attacked by their colleagues. An altered version of Schopenhauer’s quote applies to a paradigm shift:
    All truth passes through four stages. First it is ignored.
    Second it is ridiculed.
    Third it is violently opposed.
    Forth, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    In the medical sciences we are moving away from viewing a human body as a bag of chemicals to viewing it as a being of light (i.e., electromagnetic) where interactions can occur without physical contact, provided they are within a field of influence. Indeed the concept of “death” is based on the absence of electrical activity, whether it is within a cell, the brain or the heart. We are also moving towards quantum biology where molecules are able to communicate with each other even though they are in different beakers, and where diagnoses and treatments can be done at a distance, not reliant on chemistry or physics but rather on information within the quantum realm that may be transmitted by biophotons.
    This concept of the paradigm shift is important because those scientists whose theories are likely to be overthrown or those who have based a lifetime of research on certain theories are at risk of being shown to be wrong or at least incomplete. The more threatened these scientists become the more likely they are to oppose the novel paradigm. This is another reason scientists may disagree and oppose novel information contrary to prevailing scientific beliefs.
    Sir Karl Popper, who is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the twentieth century, introduced the concept of falsification in place of proof in science in his book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper, 2002).
    Popper recognized that scientific theories and the growth of scientific knowledge rest on the doctrine of falsifiability. Only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observation and experiment are properly open to scientific evaluation. The chief characteristic that distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself and to contradict their theories or hypotheses when those theories are incorrect.
    The now famous example that Popper used to explain his concept of proof versus falsification is based on black and white swans. Popper argued that no number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that “all swans are white,” but sighting of just one black swan can disprove it. Scientists generate and then attempt to disprove what is called the null hypothesis. They search for black swans and if they cannot find any they can be reasonably confident that their theory is right, although not yet proven.
    2 One measure of “truth” is the ability to predict an outcome with reliable accuracy.
    Similarly the statement that “microwave radiation is safe below guidelines,” cannot be verified by citing a large number of studies showing no adverse effects, but can be falsified by citing studies showing harmful effects.
    The BioInitiative Report (Carpenter and Sage, 2007 & 2012) is an internationally acclaimed, scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radio frequency/microwave radiation, written by an international collaboration of prestigious scientists and public health experts. It was placed on the world-wide-web so it could be accessible to the broadest possible audience and, to ensure scientific credibility, some of the chapters have been published in Pathophysiology, a peer-reviewed journal (Havas, 2009).
    The BioInitiative Report has been erroneously labeled as “cherry picking,” when in fact the authors of this report are using the scientific method to disprove the statement that “microwave radiation and low frequency electromagnetic fields below guidelines are safe.” They provide black swan evidence and reference more than 2000 publication documenting that this form of radiation is far from safe with many and varied effects. Where cherry picking provides only those references that support a hypothesis, citing black swans falsifies the given hypothesis and is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
    In an earlier review of the literature (Glaser, 1972), Dr. Zory Glaser – the U.S. Navy’s microwave expert since the 1960s – documented over 2000 publications on the biological effects of microwave and radiofrequency radiation. The following are the effects that are presented in his report, which is now declassified and available on the Internet.
    Microwave radiation can affect all parts of the body and the effects of exposure include: heating of organs (generally above current guidelines); altered physiologic function of central, autonomic and peripheral nervous system; vascular, metabolic, gastrointestinal, and psychological disorders; changes in behavioral, enzyme activity, biochemistry, endocrine gland function, histology, genetics and chromosomes; pearl chair effect and various miscellaneous effects.
    For example, the cardiovascular system seems to be particularly sensitive to microwave radiation, especially in those individuals who have mild and possibly undiagnosed heart abnormalities. This includes Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome and supraventricular tachycardia causing palpitations, dizziness, shortness of breath, anxiety, chest pain or tightness. Those who are sensitive to this radiation and experience these symptoms feel as though they are experiencing a heart attack.
    In a 1969 symposium (Cleary, 1969) scientists recommended that cardiovascular abnormalities be used as screening criteria to exclude people from occupations involving radio frequency/ microwave exposures. Back then, the only exposure to microwaves was in occupational and military settings. Today, microwaves are ubiquitous as we rely on cells phones, cell phone antennas, Wi-Fi routers, smart appliances and smart meters, all of which generate microwave radiation. Children seem to be particularly vulnerable and a growing number of students complain of health effects that include headaches, fatigue, dizziness, difficulty concentrating and a rapid or irregular heart rate while in school with Wi-Fi routers (WiFi in schools, 2010). Perhaps students, who attend Wi-Fi enabled schools or schools near cell phone base stations, should be screened for cardiovascular abnormalities as a precautionary measure.
    As the Navy’s microwave specialist, Dr. Glaser had access to military and government reports as well as internal memos and foreign translations of research from the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries. After his retirement, he offered his collection of more than 6000 documents to several university libraries but was turned down presumably because they did not recognize the value of such a collection and possibly due to the cost of cataloguing these documents. He was planning to discard his papers as he was no longer in need of them but I convinced him to give them to me. In the early days of radar, research on microwaves was classified, but all of the documents he gave me were declassified. After sorting through his collection I selected some of the more useful references, scanned them, and posted them on the Internet.
    I asked Dr. Glaser why he didn’t speak out about the harmful effects of microwave radiation as many of the documents in his possession clearly indicated how harmful this radiation could be. His response was quite sobering. He said, “because the military paid my salary and is now paying my pension.” In his mind, speaking out publicly would be an act of disloyalty.
    Unlike pharmaceutical drugs that are rigorously tested before they are placed on the marketed, man-made chemicals and novel technologies seldom go through rigorous testing before they are released. We find out decades later the damage they are doing and stopping or reversing this damage is far from simple. The greater the latency period and the more subtle and widespread the damage, the more difficult it is to make a cause-effect connection. Combine this with lobbying from vested interest groups; incomplete, misleading and suppressed information; and the greed and ignorance of some of the players, and it is a marvel we are able to make any improvements in environmental quality. The time between the release of a novel technology, assessment of the damages caused, and the establishment of effective policies often takes several generations with children and grandchildren paying the greatest price for the activities of the parent. We should take notice of the seventh generation principle, based on an ancient Iroquois philosophy, that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future.
    When students ask me why it takes so long before appropriate guidelines are provided after a substance or a technology has been found to be harmful, this is what I tell them.
    When a new chemical is developed (DDT, PCBs), an existing substance is exploited (coal, lead, asbestos) or a novel technology (internal combustion engine, cellular telephones) becomes popular and widely employed – initially the science that documents the harmful effects is incomplete and often confusing.
    Early warning indicators may be known to a few scientists who publish their findings, but seldom do these publications receive a lot of attention. Industry and corporations, in their attempt to generate additional sources of revenue by developing novel uses for their products, accelerate the amount of pollution generated. The adverse biological consequences become more pronounced or more widespread and people begin to notice.
    As the scientific community continues to ponder the problem, more information is generated and pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together, painting a picture that the industry responsible for the problem would like to have expunged.
    Much of the dialogue is among experts at this stage, but eventually the media gets a whiff of the problem and informs the public, presenting both sides of an issue to give “balanced” reporting. “He says/she says” statements don’t get people riled up unless they themselves are directly affected and give the impression that scientists can’t agree. Scientific understanding among journalists is a rare gem as most reporters have a better understanding and training in business, economics, political science or sports. Consequently, the reporting may be shallow and inaccurate with little attention paid to potential conflicts of interest of those interviewed when presenting differing perspectives on an issue.
    The industry is contacted and they state that their activity falls within existing guidelines established by the government.
    Government is contacted but they seldom have a full understanding of the problem and rarely have a solution that will not disrupt some segment of society. Just like the media, very few politicians have a background rooted in science and often need to rely on their non-political staff for advice. Bureaucrats may be well-versed or not, but often have limited effect as final decisions are influenced by politics.
    A few of the scientists may turn their focus towards raising awareness and providing a bridge to the science so it is understood. They begin to communicate outside their tribe. They make themselves available for interviews; write letters to the government, sign appeals or petitions with other professionals. The greater their knowledge and credibility the more influential they become and the more likely they are to become targets. If you can’t cast doubt on the science, discredit the scientist or the doctor. Stop their funding, criticize their research, spread false rumors about their work, take away their medical license, and have them demoted or, better yet, fired. This is more difficult to do for those who have tenure, but even tenured scientists are not immune from these tactics. Truth need not play a role in this process.
    Meanwhile industry funds their own studies, showing that the problem doesn’t exist or, if it does exist, it isn’t due to their activity, and, if it is due to their activity, clean-up would be too costly for them to bear, and they would need to close up shop and lay off a lot of workers. This leaves the government conflicted. They weigh the value of jobs and the economic health of a community against the health of workers, consumers and possible other living creatures.
    All industry has to do is cast enough doubt on the issue. “Doubt is their product” (Michaels, 2005), was a tactic used by the tobacco industry that delayed effective steps to reduce smoking for decades despite the overwhelming evidence that smoking was addictive and caused emphysema, added to cost of doing business in sick leave and adversely affected the quality of life for people who developed lung cancer and heart disease and for their families.
    If “doubt is their product” can be ascribed to industry, then “deny there’s a problem” can be ascribed to government. Once government admits there is a problem they need to do something about it and this is where the true impediment lies, so they hide the evidence behind adjectives.
    In 2002 and 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) respectively, as a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic) (IARC 2002 & 2013). Despite this classification and despite numerous reviews of the literature documenting the adverse effects of electromagnetic pollution, various agencies and governments continue to deny that a problem exists. See examples that follow:
    International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP,1998):
    “... studies have yielded no convincing evidence that typical exposure levels [radio frequencies] lead to adverse reproductive outcomes or an increased cancer risk in exposed individuals.”
    Health Protection Agency (2012) in the UK:
    “... there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children.”
    Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. (FDA, 2015):
    “No evidence linking cell phone use to risk of brain tumors.”
    This statement was released after the initial report of the multi-national and multi-million dollar INTERPHONE (The INTERPHONE Study Group, 2011) study that documented a 40% to 80% increase risk in gliomas after 1640 hours exposure over 10 years of use. The clincher is that the tumors tend to be on the same side of the head on which the cell phone is held, which is also the area of maximum microwave exposure. Note: this FDA statement is false as there is ample evidence linking cell phone use to brain tumors. This link is recognized by Lloyds of London, who stopped insuring cell phone users (Ryle, 1999). Even the companies that manufacture cell phones now recommend in the fine print that you not place the cell phone in direct contact with your body (“See the Fine Print”, n.d.).
    Health Canada (Health Canada, 2011):
    “There is no conclusive evidence of any long-term or cumulative health risks from exposure to low-intensity RF energy.”
    Adjectives like “consistent, convincing, conclusive” are highly subjective and unscientific. These words are alarm bells signaling that, while evidence does exist, the person behind the statements doesn’t hold that evidence in high regard or wants to undercut the evidence.
    Science is often used to delay action since information is seldom complete and the competing interests muddy the waters of science leaving either genuine confusion or political convenience that dictates funding more research.
    The statement “we need more research,” at the end of a publication often leaves everyone satisfied including the scientists funded to do the work, the government that can delay taking steps to regulate the pollutant, the industry that can continue to pollute, the media that can report on the “progress” being made, and the public who believe their best interests are being served.
    Everyone is satisfied, except those early-warning scientists or whistle blowers who recognize the delay tactics but are powerless to do anything useful about them. Scientists, even Nobel Prize- winning scientists, wield some influence but seldom have power to initiate any change.
    The precautionary principle/approach was developed to prevent this type of inaction by governing bodies when serious harm is an issue in light of incomplete scientific evidence. The concept of the precautionary approach is based on Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
    “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
    Who wanted smoking controlled once the harmful effects became common knowledge? Certainly not those who were addicted, as they needed their fix. The tobacco industry and retail stores selling the product benefiting from tobacco sales as did the government from tax revenue. Advertising agencies showed doctors smoking, suggesting that smoking was safe and, some would say, even healthy.
    What happened with cigarettes is also happening with wireless technology.
    We now have a technology that has become addictive. Cell phones were originally advertised to the busy executive on the move. Later having a cell phone ensured your safety should you find yourself in an emergency. Today, many children and teenagers have their own cell phones that they use to stay in touch with friends through social media. They spend hours each day in front of a screen whether it is a smart TV, computer, tablet or their cell phone. When these devices are used in a wireless fashion and are transmitting information, they emit microwave radiation. Eventually the costs of smoking, in terms of human health and health care, were so excessive that even those who inhaled secondhand smoke, including children, were at risk and once the risk could no longer be denied the government began to acknowledge non-smokers’ rights and took steps to ban selling cigarettes to minors and to restrict smoking on airplanes and in public spaces. The industry benefited by selling nicotine patches and electronic cigarettes to help addicts recover.
    Once the harmful effects of wireless technology can no longer be denied we will find ourselves in the same position where there will be white zones (similar to smoke-free environments), children will be warned not to use cell phones except for emergencies (this is already happening), Wi-Fi will be replaced with wired technology in schools (also happening in a few school districts and individual schools), and technology that is stationary will have only wired access (like office printers and computers, and gaming stations). Some countries will enforce the precautionary principle as has recently been done in Switzerland to protect children in schools with Wi-Fi (“Switzerland,” 2017).
    Balanced reporting is a central dictum of journalism. If the subject is climate change, reporters need to interview someone who supports this concept and someone who denies it, leading to a “he said/she said” dichotomy that often leaves the public thinking that scientists aren’t able to agree about anything. Furthermore, journalists today seldom have a background in the sciences and are unable to ask the type of questions required for in-depth reporting. Due to time and financial constraints, facts may not be checked and the final document released may contain factual errors and misquotes leading to even more confusion. That is one reason that many of my colleagues are unwilling to give interviews: they don’t want to be misquoted.
    Sometimes the problem lies not with the reporter but with the media (the newspaper, radio or TV station). Whomsoever owns the media and provides advertising dollars can significantly affect the type of information delivered in news reports. I know of several reporters (and one documentary director) who, once they recognized how harmful electromagnetic pollution can be, became well- versed in the issues and continued to report about the effects until they were eventually fired. In a free society the role of unbiased reporting is essential but this role is being compromised.
    Today we have access to so much information. When I was a student and started my research the Internet was not available. It now provides a major source for information transfer among all segments of society, just as the printing press made books affordable and brought rare works of science and art to a broader audience.
    Unlike peer-reviewed documents that go through some type of (imperfect) quality check, much is available on the Internet that is simply inaccurate or downright false. How do you determine what is good science and what is pseudo-science, or, what is becoming increasingly more common, propaganda veiled as science?
    Can Wikipedia, government websites, university websites, commercial websites, and websites from certain countries be trusted? Who determines what information is posted and who can comment and what types of comments are allowed? How long is specific information available? Will it be available next week or next year or do you need to capture a frame grab to ensure its survival?
    What happens to research that was published decades ago? Will it be unread and forgotten in university stacks and government libraries? How much of it will be scanned and made available to those who want to read it?
    How do/will search engines function? How easy will it be to find publications that contain “undesirable” information that is threatening to some segment of society? These are questions that remain unanswered in a system that is ever-evolving but to which answers are essential for the functioning of science in a free and democratic world.
    What the future holds in the area of wireless technology and the resultant electrosmog is disturbing to those of us who do research in this area. The new fifth-generation (5G) system is just around the corner as consumers demand rapid download of full-length feature films onto their wireless device in the comfort of their homes. The 4G system is too slow for this, hence the “need” for 5G. 5G uses higher frequencies (channels of communication) and is able to transmit more information more quickly. The higher frequency requires close-range antennas and will cost billions as the infrastructure is built out.
    To date few studies on the biological effects have been conducted at the frequencies that are going to be used. The U.S. military has done some research using 95 GHz as a frequency for crowd control, which they call the Active Denial System (ADS) (“Active Denial System,” 2017). Large antennas mounted on trucks can be directed at crowds. A short blast at high intensity causes extreme pain by heating the liquid in the sweat glands. This pain is transmitted to the brain via the peripheral nervous system. Heavy clothing does nothing to reduce the pain. The military claims that there are no long-lasting effects but we know that eyes are sensitive to microwave radiation and we know the skin is the largest organ in the body for detoxification. Tests have inadvertently produced blisters and second–degree burns. Damaging the eyes and skin can have very serious long-term consequences that need to be determined prior to even low–level exposure to these high GHz frequencies.
    Concomitant with the roll out of 5G, more wireless devices are being developed and marketed to an unsuspecting public. Smart meters, smart appliances, smart homes, smart lights, Wi-Fi and mobile phones that radiate constantly, wireless security systems, all contribute to our cumulative RF exposure and make our home toxic. Frivolous and dangerous uses abound like diapers that send a message to the parent’s cell phone when soiled and needing changing, or soothers that monitor an infant’s temperature while they are sleeping. Such long-term microwave exposure in contact with an infant’s body is dangerous and reminiscent of the frivolous and dangerous uses of X-rays to fit children’s shoes and to remove facial hair, both practices that were quickly banned. While the cleanup of toxic chemicals can be a long-term and costly process, the cleanup of wireless technology is much simpler. Turn it off and replace it with wired technology. The less we expand the wireless infrastructure, the less costly the cleanup will be.
    On a more positive note, I often share stories about people I consider to be environmental heroes with my students. Scientists, medical doctors and others who are unafraid to speak out and are willing to voice opinions that are contrary to political views, economic conditions and the current scientific paradigm. They are truth seekers and speak truth to power. They are men and women who value honesty and have the integrity to withstand both condemnation and flattery and are swayed by neither success nor failure. Those who simply want to do what is “right” irrespective of the personal cost. They care deeply about the health of the environment and its inhabitants, whether that environment is a remote lake in the arctic, an asbestos mine, a patch of forest sprayed with pesticide, or a classroom with Wi-Fi routers.
    Who are some of these heroes? Rachel Carson is perhaps one of the better–known environmental heroes. She raised the alarm in her book, Silent Spring, which focused on DDT and other halogenated hydrocarbons that biomagnify up the food chain and kill top predatory fish- eating birds resulting in the absence of bird-calls in the spring. Man is also a top predator and knowledge of the harmful effects of these and other chemicals convinced governments to issue guidelines about eating certain fish based on the toxins they carry in their body. Whereas DDT and similar chemicals were liberally sprayed in lakes, over land, and directly on people, their use is now considerably limited as a result of people like Rachel Carson.
    The harmful effects of asbestos are also well known and much of this is due to the work of Dr. Irving Selikoff, a medical doctor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, who found an abnormally high rate of asbestosis and mesothelioma among this patients who were members of the asbestos workers union. Selikoff spent decades of this life documenting these effects and speaking out in public. By the 1980s there was a total or partial ban of asbestos in some countries, although asbestos is still being used and sent to developing countries and the death toll for asbestos–related deaths continues to rise and is expected to peak around 2020 due to the long 20 to 40 year latency period between exposure and onset of illness. In contrast to the government ban in the 1980s, life insurance companies in Canada and the U.S. stopped insuring asbestos workers in 1918.
    Dr. Herb Needleman, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist, conducted a study at Harvard Medical School in the 1970s providing the first clear evidence that lead, even at very low levels, could affect a child’s IQ. Inner city children were most at risk. Needleman spoke out for decades against the harmful effects of lead in paint and gasoline much to the chagrin of the lead industry. His work helped reduce blood-lead levels with stricter guidelines that reduced lead in paint and eventually lead in gasoline.
    Within the realm of electromagnetic pollution we have many heroes and I will name only a few. Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and professor at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, has documented the harmful effects of cell phones on brain tumors. Dr. Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has been a strong advocate for those suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). The team of Dr. Martin Graham, at UC Berkeley, and Dave Stetzer, a power quality expert in Wisconsin, has advanced our understanding of the harmful effects of ground current to humans and livestock.
    If it wasn’t for these experts and other scientists, medical doctors, and public health officials our environment would be much more toxic today.
    As long as we have these heroes who speak out and people in positions of authority who have the courage and fortitude to act, and as long as we value environmental quality, quality of life and human health, we have a chance not only to survive but to flourish. There does not need to be a conflict between economics and the environment. Our future can be brighter than it is right now. How long that will take will depend on our level of ignorance, apathy and greed and what we value as a society.