Decoding the Trump Administration's Stance on EMF Radiation Regulation
As expected, the Trump administration has taken a stance that is out of step with prevailing scientific consensus on the effects of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) radiation on human health. The administration has been floating new regulations that would increase Americans’ exposure to radiation, based on the belief that radiation might not be as harmful as previously thought, and might even confer health benefits.
The proposed regulation change is based on the theories of Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and his supporters. They argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation can serve as stressors that activate the body’s repair mechanisms, thereby improving health. The comparison they draw is to physical exercise or sunlight, both of which can have beneficial effects in moderate amounts but can be harmful in excess.
This shift in policy indicates a departure from the currently accepted “linear no-threshold” (LNT) model, which posits that any radiation exposure carries some risk. Instead, the administration is promoting what could be dubbed as the “No Big Deal” (NBD) model. This new approach suggests that substances lethal at high doses might be beneficial at low doses.
Critics, however, warn that this change in policy might have far-reaching implications beyond radiation regulation. They point out that the Trump administration seems to be applying the NBD model to other areas, such as climate change regulation. For instance, the administration has decided to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards, which would result in increased greenhouse-gas emissions. The reasoning is that since the planet’s temperature is already set to rise significantly, a little bit more warming will hardly matter.
While this proposed policy shift is sure to stir debate, it is essential to remember that it is based on the views of a minority within the scientific community. The prevailing consensus still supports the LNT model, which suggests that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. Therefore, the public must remain vigilant and informed about these policy changes and their potential impact on health and the environment.
In a world increasingly reliant on wireless technologies and grappling with the challenges of climate change, it is critical to have a scientifically accurate understanding of radiation’s effects. Only then can we strike a balance between technological advancement and public health. Learn more about how 5G & EMF radiation was such a cause for concern & safety that senator Blumenthal from congress had to inquire FCC here.
