Armed with recent research on the behavioural effects of engaging electronically, as well as the damaging effects of social media content, campaigners such as Health Professionals for Safer Screens have been making their voices heard in Parliament and now a social media ban has been announced. But the objections to this are many: children could easily circumvent the ban; it might be seen as unwanted state interference in matters which concern parents only; the need for age verification may make it easier for the Government to sneak in digital ID.
My question is: is proper debate really possible, when certain facts have been completely and consistently swept under the carpet? The facts I refer to are the result of decades of scientific research which suggest that electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including wireless radiation from smartphones and other sources, have a negative impact on health. Politicians seem averse to engaging with the scientific evidence on this.
Six years ago, for example, the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry, set up by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, invited submissions and received 147 of them. In its report, the committee seemed to imply that the negative health effects of EMFs detailed in 78 of these submissions were “conspiracy theories” and, though robust evidence was cited in most submissions, the committee failed to report on them and was content to ignore 51% of the written evidence (more details here). When there is clear evidence of health risks, why will policymakers not engage?
Now, however, there is another chance for politicians to engage with robust, modern and independent science that might, admittedly, stand in the way of their goals, but is, in fact, crucial for public health protection....<<<Read More>>>...
