As technology continues to advance we become more dependent on it, whether it is daily communication or medical use. This dependency is increasing our exposure to potentially harmful electromagnetic radiation that could be affecting our health. We are living in an era that is run by technology so it is important to be informed about these possible hazards. In the past this topic has been overlooked because frequency emitted from our daily technology, such as cellphones, has been classified as low frequency, therefore not seen as a threat. Recent findings have caused us to reconsider this issue and examine its severity. Many cases and studies have proven that there is a direct correlation between technological radiation and health issues. Although this correlation has been discovered, there is not much scientific evidence on how it ors so.  The early stages and lack of research are the center of the controversy surrounding this topic. Due to this skepticism, there are a few disagreements regarding this issue. One disagreement may come from technology companies who may be opposed to openly sharing the health risks of their products. Another disagreement may come from the belief that it is not possible to reduce the affects of this radiation because of how much we rely on technology. I understand that is is not possible to completely eliminate technology, therefore impossible to completely reduce our exposure. But through my findings and research I believe it is logical to conclude that radiation emitted from our technology affects human health and it is important to share the ways we can reduce our exposure in order to preserve our health. Most importantly, it is necessary to inform the younger generation, such as my own, on these effects. As a college student I understand what is means to live in a generation run my technology. I also understand the recourses that are available to me and the impact I have the ability to make on generations to come. College student have the platform and information accessible that allows them the ability to enact social change. Thus, it is important for our technology dependent generation to be informed about these effects in order to take precautionary actions to maintain our health.

 In the early 1900's a Russian engineer, Georges Lakhovsky, wrote a book The Secret of Life and shared an important discovery about radiation. He explained how the cells in every living thing emit and absorb radiation. "What does this mean? Your body is composed of ions, minerals and a high percentage of water. A very effective antenna, it is a strong conductor of energy. Each cell in your body is like a complex bio-computer with energy fields -- each second undergoing thousands of biological, biochemical, and electromagnetic changes. Disturb the normal functioning of these fields -- for example by creating an abnormal concentration of electromagnetic waves (as from cell-phones) -- and it can be disastrous to your health" (Clausen, Iben). As technology has become more prominent, this statement and threat of electromagnetic radiation has been overlooked. 

 Electromagnetic radiation is described as the flowing of electrons that form invisible fields of energy that surround us. EMF radiation is emitted from appliances, TV's, phones, power lines, etc. Prior to the invention of electricity, the only exposure humans experienced tom EMFs came from natural forms such as the sun. Over time humans adapted to solar EMFs by developing a protective pigment. Unfortunately, according to Andrew Marindo, PhD, JD, an expert in bioelectromagnetics, "we have no protection against other EMF frequencies" (Segell, Michael). Studies have shown that this radiation targets the immune system, nerves, and the brain. In an article posted in Preventio magazine, Michael Segell discusses the history of these harmful effects. When television was introduces in Australia in 1965 there was a documented increase in cancer among people who lived near the transmission towers. Another recorded effects occurred in the the 1970's when Nancy Wetheimer, PhD, an epidemiologist who detected a rise in childhood leukemia among kids living near electric power lines. Researchers with the National Cancer Institute also detected a link between technology radiation and children in 1998 when they reported that childhood leukemia risks were significantly elevated in children who's mothers used electric blankets during their pregnancy, children who used hair dryers, video machines in arcades, and video games connected to TV's. These are just a few of the recorded effects in history that technology radiation has on the body. 

 Everyone is susceptible to the exposure of EMF but some individuals are more sensitive. Many people suffer from EHS (electro-hypersensitivity). Patty Hemingway, who suffers from EHS herself, published an article in Health Watch that discusses the effects of EMFs on human health. Hemingway explains that radiation can weaken the bodes still-functioning mechanisms. Those who have EHS can suffer from learning concentration and behavioral disorders, fluctuation in blood pressure, heart rhythm disorders, and heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population. There is no treatment for EHS. Not everyone may suffer from radiation to this severity, but no one is immune to the affects of radiation. As each generation becomes more dependent on technology, therefore exposed to more radiation,  the threat of these effects become more apparent. 

Despite the history of evidence of the adverse health effects caused by radiation, the topic still seems to be overlooked and in the early stages of research. Studies have shown The EMF radiation emitted from our everyday appliances is targeting the immune system, nerves, the brain, and causing cell damage and mutation. An interesting article by Tracie White discusses a study published by Won Hee Lee and Yong Fuga Li which showed results proving that exposure to radiation from computed tomography (CT) scanning causes cellular damage. "We now know that even small exposure to small amounts of radiation from computed tomagraphy scanning is associated with cellular damage", states Patricia Nguyen, MD, one of the lead authors of the study and assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Stanford University (White, DNA Damage in Patients undergoing CT scanning). The concern with his finding is that low dose X ray beams that are causing this cellular damage and cell mutation that is causing cells to turn into tumors. The study looked at blood sampled of 67 patients before and after they underwent CT scanning and measured biomarkers of DNA damage. Researchers found an increase in DNA damage and an increase in cell death. "These findings raise the possibility that radiation exposure from cardiac CT angiography may cause DNA damage that can lead to mutations if damaged cells are not repaired or eliminated properly," the study said.  Nguyen stated, "cumulative cell death after repeated exposures may also be problematic." (White, DNA Damage in Patients undergoing CT scanning). More than anything, this study shows the need for more research on the topic. These results mark the beginning of research that provides evidence that strengthens the argument that radiation exposure may cause damage that will lead to cell mutation. The early stages and lack of research on thus topic has caused skepticism on the topic. There is currently a bill that has been presented to Congress to fund more research on these health effects. As we continue research researchers will continue to find the correlation between radiation exposure, as proved by this study. 

 The scientific evidence for the bioeffects and health impacts of this exposure continues to grow.  Lennart Hardell conducted a study and found abundant cased of health issues, specifically with mobile use and evidence for brain tumors and acoustic neuroma. The results found in this study were important because not only did the study find a consistent patter of an increase risk in acoustic neuroma but it was performed with a latency period of 10 years. Some controversy on this topic sparks from the fact that one might argue that it is hard to prove the health effects because low frequency radiation would only have effect over long period of time, therefore it might be hard to show the relationship between the two. Hardell's study abstract states, "Most studies have published data with rather short latency period and limited information on long term user" (Hardell, Biological Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Public Exposure Standards). This study concluded that long term exposure to cellphone radiation is not safe. Hardell's study also covered changes in the nervous system and brain function.  He wrote, "exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studies in connection with Alzheimers disease, motor neuron disease and Parkinsons disease" (Hardell, Biological Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Public Exposure Standards.)  

 As stated earlier, most of the opposition comes from the fact there is not a lot of research on this topic. As time goes on we are only going to continue to find more evidence. There is a bill passing through Congress that is requesting more funding regarding this issue. With more funding we will be able to conduct more research and further prove the negative health effects of low radiation technology. 

 Do not believe it is possible to eliminate technology but important to raise awareness. It is important to inform our technology dependent generation of the possibly damaging effects technology may have on our health.

The effects from radiation emitted from our technology is causing people who have normal lives to reach a point where they can no longer work or be in environments of radiation. Action needs to be taken. It is not logical to suggest that people stop using technology. We live in a technology based society so the only rational reasoning is to promote simple ways in which we can reduce our exposure in our everyday lives. It is going to take a mindful approach in order for each individual to change their lifestyle in order to preserve their health. The proposed changes are going to take an acquired effort toward changing your relationship with technology. There are levels to way in which the action and policies regarding this topic need to be enforced. There needs to be enforcement from the individual that is self motived as well as enforcement from the government and larger policy making bodies. Currently the FFC (Federal Communication Commission) is the organization that is in charge of regulating wireless technology.  In his TED Talk, Jeromy Johnson, engineer turned heath technology advocate, exposed that the current regulations are more than 20 years old. Johnson explained big technology industries are mostly influencing this. Because science is heavily influenced by industry funding, there is a lack of funding from major technology industries due to worries about profit of their product. Industries need to create safer products. Johnson suggests that we move toward fiber optics and bring in biologists and biophysicist to create products that emit the least amount of electric fields as possible. 

Until the FFC creates more of a presence in aiding to solve this issue, it is important for the individual to take accountability for their own health. A precautionary stance is the best way for the individual to go about it. "Sir William Stewart Chairman of the HPA (which since 2005 has incorporated the National Radiological Protection Board) has been calling for the precautionary principle to be exercised since his first report in 2000, and he is not alone" (Hemingway). In Johnson's TED Talk, he discusses ways in which we can protect ourselves and shared five things everyone can do. The first was to make sure we are using our cellphones wisely by using speakerphone, headsets, and turning it on airplane mode whenever it is in the pocket. It is also important to distance kids as much as possible and to teach them wisely. The second recommendation was to switch to wired options whenever possible and move away from wifi. Wifi is not necessary in the home and should be replaced with ethernet or fiber optics. If you do chose to have wifi in your home it is important to turn it off at night. Third, reduce technology exposure for children. If they are using an iPad put all the data on the iPad and turn off the wifi while in use. Schools should learn toward wired optics and veer away from wifi. Fourth, Johnson recommended individuals opt out of wireless smart meters and the smart house. Lastly, individuals should create a safe sleeping space for themselves. Turn off wireless devices and unplug everything. 

Until there is further external regulation from the FCC, individual regulations like this need to be taken. Megan Feldman presented similar ways to avoid cellphone radiation such as using speakerphone, keeping it in your purse or backpack, talking in areas with good reception, and using a phone that is certified as emitting the least amount of radiation. Individuals can check the environmental working groups list of the best and worst phones at ewg.org (Hemingway). 

Along with regulation, spreading awareness is a key aspect to making progress and change. The health effects are going to effect younger generations more because they are so used to always having some sort of technology on them at all times but are thought that it could be harmful to their health. College students are in a perfect position to make a social impact because they are on the cusp of youth and adulthood and have a plethora of recourses that allows them to make a statement. If the students at the University of South Carolina took action and on this campus made efforts to reduce radiation, there is a great chance that other campuses would follow. By simply spreading awareness and taking small action locally, students have the ability to set a standard for other communities and generations to come. 

The proposed actions will make a change in the individuals life but to really change the current state of affairs we need the FCC to take action. Despite the progress that has been made in regards to research on this topic, we need to continue to push for progress, especially in regard to more funding. This issue has been apparent since the early 1900's we have yet to take the necessary action. It is vital that this topic is taken seriously because people everywhere are suffering from harmful effects that can be avoided through spreading awareness and regulation. 

