Screens and health: Radiation as a complementary theory to social explanations
Screen use has become a debated topic in recent years. I won’t attempt to count the number of books that have been published on the possible detrimental effects of screens. One recent international bestseller is Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation (2024). In The Anxious Generation Haidt delves into the increase in screen use as a likely cause of the decline in mental health, particularly among the young.
But if the effects of screens are real, then how? Social and psychological effects have been highlighted, along with the effects of blue light which we have gained more knowledge about in recent years.
Devra Davis, an American epidemiologist and toxicologist, visited Norway on November 7, 2024, for the launch of the Norwegian edition of her book Disconnect and gave a lecture for about 150 attendees. In Disconnect, she offers an additional, purely biophysical explanation for detrimental effects of screen use: the non-ionizing radiation emitted from our handheld devices.
Attached is controversy. Society at large does not welcome with open arms the idea that non-ionizing radiation could be relevant for public health. Attacking screens is also an attack on a technology we love and that many businesses depend on. Even for Jonathan Haidt, who did not touch upon the radiation theme in his book, “managing the blowback has become a full-time job”.
In this post follows a brief summary of Davis’s lecture in Oslo, November 7. I will not go into detail on the various claims set forth in Davis’ presentation or by other presenters at the event.
The event
Devra Davis
Devra Davis of Environmental Health Trust (Wyoming, USA) visited Oslo, Norway November 7, 2024, for the release of her 2010 book Disconnect (Norwegian title, Trådløse skjermer).
The Norwegian release (November 2024), follows a revision of Disconnect from January 2024.
Davis is an epidemiologist and toxicologist who has conducted research since 1988 and currently has 369 listings in Google Scholar, wtih more than 12,551 citations. Her most Cited article is Medical hypothesis: xenoestrogens as preventable causes of breast cancer with more than 860 citations.
Location
The event took place at The House of Literature (Litteraturhuset)) in Oslo, with about 150 attendants, and was arranged by the publisher Svein Sandnes Bokforlag, Einar Flydal (translator) and FELO (the Norwegian electro-sensitivity organization).
Speakers
Other speakers were:
- Ole Petter Hjelle, MD, PhD, author
- Cornelia Waltmann-Seltsam, dr. med.
- Else Nordhagen, telecom scientist
- Eirik Garnås, college lecturer
- Solveig Glomsrød, scientist and representative of FELO
- Hugo P. Matre, attorney, Schjødt AS
- Odd Magne Hjortland, engineer, EMF Consult AS
Testicles
When I grew up at the turn of the millennium and got my first phone, a silver-colored Motorola, I vaguely remember we boys jokingly scaring each other that we’d get testicular cancer if we carried the phone in our pants.
Today, 30 years later, testicles once again took the stage in Davis’s lecture titled What testicles and brains have in common - and what happened with that knowledge.
But since the introduction of the mobile phone it has not been testicular cancer that has caught researchers’ interest. (In fact, I cannot recall having seen any research report looking at or finding an association between phone use and testicular cancer.) The relevant topic has become male fertility. And that was what Davis opened her lecture with.
Davis gave many references to research on various biological and health effects, many of which she herself has contributed to, and that in her view speaks of clear effects.
At the same time, Davis acknowledged the role of other theories as to why we could see detrimental effects of screen use, such as children’s development being impaired by the loss of developmentally important verbal and non-verbal communication with their parents.
Cancer has long been a research interest for Davis. In her presentation she touched upon findings relevant to some specific cancers, such as thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer in young adults and brain cancer. In a paper in Environmental Research from 2017 she and coauthors reviewed the literature, and concluded that the classification for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) should be elevated from group 2B, possibly carcinogenic, to group 1, carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMF as possibly carcinogenic in 2011.
Of course, only IARC has the mandate to change their own classification of cancer causing substances. RF-EMF is up for review at IARC, within the period 2025-2029, and its classification might change (in either direction) then.
Guidelines are outdated and have been shown to be exceeded
Further, Davis presented critique of current guidelines for exposure limits, stating that they are outdated.
If current radiation limits are too loose, shouldn’t we at least trust that today’s phones don’t exceed them?
On that question, Davis referred to findings by the Canadian broadcaster CBS (2017) and the Chicago Tribune (2019) that have shown that despite loose regulations, many phones do exceed the limits when tested in real settings close to the body.
Below is a video of the 2017 CBS report.
In addition, Davis explained that her organization, Environmental Health Trust, has recently revealed that the U.S. regulatory office, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), secretly tested phones themselves back in 2019, when the Chicago Tribune piece on phone limits was published. They, too, found that radiation exposure limits were exceeded.
But the FCC withheld that information from the public. According to Davis, this is a little-known fact that has not made it into the news yet. And none of these revelations have resulted in any changes.
Environmental Health Trust has also been successful in a lawsuit against the FCC in 2021. The judge ordered the FCC to review the literature on non-ionizing radiation, so that recent science could be taken into account in their regulatory guidelines. A mistake was made, Davis stated: The court didn’t give the FCC a deadline, so the court order has not resulted in any changes, and a sequential lawsuit may be required to hold FCC to account.
More curiosity needed
In my view, what Davis presented, should encourage more people and scientists to at least be curious about possible health risks of non-ionizing radiation emitted from screens, and other equipment.
It is surprising that scientists studying the health effects of screen usage often don’t even mention RF-EMF. At least one would expect scientists looking at health effects of screens state that it is not an important factor, or state that the knowledge is limited - if that is their stance.
If I can offer an emphatic (as opposed to a critical) interpretation of why we often don’t hear RF-EMF mentioned when discussing the health effects of screens, I’d say it might partly stem from a lack of knowledge about RF-EMF, possibly combined with the complexity of the subject. On the more critical side, one could argue that taking non-ionizing radiation out of the equation raises a question of research ethics. Not mentioning RF-EMF is an easy way to escape the complexity, and controversy, but what does it say about the truth-seeking of those scientists?
Are we seeing increased interest in non-ionizing radiation in Norway?
Are more scientists looking into the radiation effects of screen use in Norway?
I have seen few signs of growing research interest. However, one other presenter at the event, a Norwegian general practitioner and author Ole Petter Hjelle (PhD), who gave a lecture on his own book “The Digital Dope” (Det digitale dopet), shared some news.
Hjelle first summarized the effects of screens and possible explanations from his own book, into four talking points:
- Disrupted brain development, particularly in young children
- Reduced sleep time and quality (due to blue light effects and less time used for sleep when screens are prioritized)
- Reduced mental health, due to use of social media (the social comparison hypthesis)
- Inactivity or less movement
Radio-frequency radiation was not mentioned.
But at the end of the lecture, Hjelle stated that he is looking into starting a project in cooperation with the Norwegian research institute SINTEF, where they will try to isolate the radiation effects of screen use.
The information shared on this possible project was scarce, but if such a project is undertaken, it can be promising for the scientific field concerned with health effects of non-ionizing radiation. SINTEF is “one of Europe’s largest independent research organisations”. They currently use the slogan Technology for a better society at their website.
In the meantime, having followed this topic for years myself, without seeing notable scientific progress initiated in Norway, except independent scientists endeavors (1,2), one may best stay reserved and keep expectations low, as to whether the mentioned project will be brought to life any time soon.
I have only just opened the Davis’s book myself, so this is not a review of Davis’s book or a comment on the book’s scientific content. I have also not read Hjelle’s book.
For anyone interested in environmental health, I can however recommend two other books by Davis, that I have read: When Smore Ran Like Water (2002) and The Secret History of the War on Cancer (2007).
Citation
BibTeX citation:
@online{rohde2024,
author = {Rohde, Mads},
title = {Screens and {Health:} {EMF} {Scentist} {Devra} {Davis}
{Visits} {Norway}},
date = {2024-11-14},
url = {https://madsrohde.com//posts/en/davis-disconnect-oslo},
langid = {en}
}
For attribution, please cite this work as:
Rohde, Mads. 2024. “Screens and Health: EMF Scentist Devra Davis
Visits Norway.” The EpiWaves Blog. November 14, 2024. https://madsrohde.com//posts/en/davis-disconnect-oslo.