Becoming a guinea pig is the unspoken consequence of living in
this, the second Industrial Revolution. Whereas the human guinea pigs in
the first Industrial Revolution were indiscriminately subjected to new
chemical compounds and air pollutants from recently built factories, we
are immersed in new light wavelengths, electromagnetic clouds,
radiation, and pathogens.
Those previous guinea pigs were calmed by cheery slogans like
"Better Living Through Chemistry" while
we are pacified by the existence of alphabet-soup agencies like the
FCC, FDA and USDA. But while regulators are certainly more reassuring
than empty corporate slogans, it doesn't change the fact that the
long-term impacts of new technologies can only be determined over time.
And that means whole populations become test subjects—whether they
choose to participate or not.
The most notorious example is our widespread embrace of cell phones.
As the first humans subjecting our skulls to close-range radio
frequency energy on a moment-to-moment basis, we are a little like
cigarette fiends in that smoky Mad Men era before the
tobacco industry's admissions.
We are the guinea pigs who will show future generations whether this
particular telecommunications technology is truly safe. Because being
part of such an experiment is creepy, lots of people don't like to
discuss it— even though the scientific debate about cell phone radiation
isn't settled. But hey, at least most of us are vaguely aware that cell phone use might come with human health implications.
The same, though, can't be said of other new technologies that are—or
soon will be—as universal. For all the attention that fears about cell
phones have garnered, there are plenty of other revolutionary
technologies that promise to be just as ubiquitous but that nonetheless
fly under the worry radar. Like cell phones, these technologies come
with relatively little scientific data about their long-term effects and
therefore they too are making guinea pigs out of us all. They probably
aren't going to kill us, and most will likely turn out to be safe—but we
should be cognizant of the risks and uncertainties of our new
relationships with technology. Starting with light.
Entranced by the blue rays of LEDs. Image: Flickr
What you are reading right now is not comprised of physical letters.
You are just seeing arrangements of light waves, and unless you are
looking at a pretty old screen, those waves are probably coming from
light emitting diodes, or LEDs for short. This is a relatively new
development. Up until a few years ago, most computer monitors and
television screens were backlit by cathode ray tubes and cold-cathode
fluorescent lamps. But now, LEDs are increasingly taking over the market
because they use less energy and last longer than their predecessors.
They can also be significantly smaller, which make them perfect for
compact devices like smartphones, laptops, and tablets.
Save for the
momentary political controversy
over the incandescent bulb a few years ago, the changes in the world's
lighting have generated little fanfare. Most consumers probably have no
idea any kind of market-wide changeover to LEDs was happening—after all,
as long as the TV, computer, and smartphone screen works, most of us
remain happy and uninterested in the esoterica of illumination
technology.
Yet, when it comes to human health, not all lights are necessarily
the same—especially those like LEDs whose illumination relies on
different colors of light. More specifically, as a comparative look at a
Compact fluorescent bulb's light wavelength and an
LED's light wavelength shows, LEDs rely far more heavily on blue light. And some research says that may cause serious health problems.
For example, a recent study from Madrid's Complutense University found that the blue light from LEDs can
permanently damage retina tissue. That followed a
series of reports
showing that exposure to blue light can adversely affect sleep.
Meanwhile, there is evidence that exposure to blue light affects
hormone secretion and even
gene expression. Exposure to this light may turn out to be perfectly safe—but it may take a generation basking in its glow to find out.
Technologies already more pervasive than LEDs have some experts
concerned, too. For instance, few of us probably said much more than
"sweet!" when we hooked up our first home wi-fi network and even fewer
probably considered the potential for any health downsides. But as
Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson told investigative reporter
Christopher Ketcham, wi-fi is an integral part of
“the largest full-scale experiment ever" because
"24 hours around the clock, we allow ourselves and our children to be
whole-body-irradiated by new, man-made electromagnetic fields for the
entirety of our lives."
We live in wi-fi. Image: Flickr
Of course, wi-fi routers definitely emit
much, much less intense forms
of energy than other household appliances like microwave ovens. That
makes them safer, except for one thing: most of us are only running the
microwave in short bursts—say, to warm up last night's leftovers or heat
up a hot pocket. By contrast, many of us are running the
home wi-fi network at all times.
Reacting to concerns about such exposure, the
German government investigated
the long-term effects of wi-fi in 2007—and concluded that humans should
minimize their wi-fi use. The warning was based on the
precautionary principle.
The problem isn't that there is definitive evidence of harmful effects.
It's that we lack definitive evidence that such intense and sustained
exposure is safe. As the German government said, "all the research into
its health effects has not yet been carried out."
That precautionary principle should be observed most rigorously when
we're dealing with our youngest guinea pigs. Especially because
education technology is now a fast-growing multi-billion-dollar
business, as more and more school officials and politicians promote
computers and tablets as learning panaceas. One problem with this was
identified by the
New York Times,
which reported that "schools are spending billions on technology, even
as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this
approach is improving basic learning." The other less-explored problem
is that the technology itself may not just be failing to educate kids—it
also may be fundamentally rewiring the brains of a whole generation.
According to UCLA's Gary Small, that may come with unintended consequences. As the
Associated Press
reported in 2008, his research found that "when the brain spends more
time on technology-related tasks and less time exposed to other people,
it drifts away from fundamental social skills like reading facial
expressions during conversation" which "may lead to social awkwardness,
an inability to interpret nonverbal messages, isolation and less
interest in traditional classroom learning."
Many of his findings have been backed up by other reporting on the issue, most notably from
The Atlantic's
Hanna Rosin and
"The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr.
None of these experts are Luddites. But they all argue that such
pervasive interactive technology represents a mass neurological
experiment, with society—and kids in specific—serving as the test
subjects.
Further on the horizon loom technologies we know even less about.
Tesla and wireless electricity. Image via Wikimedia
Wired's
recent cover story detailed the imminent emergence of a brave new world
in which everything becomes a smart device connected to a computer
network. In this
internet of things,
appliances, lights, cars and HVAC systems (among other things) will be
engineered with microchips that talk and respond to the network. Those
chips require some sort of energy source—the most practical of which is,
according to
Wired, resonant magnetic coupling. In other words: wireless power, or "witricity."
This technology is already available to consumers in relatively
limited forms—you can find it used, for example, in electronic
toothbrushes and
fancy smartphone chargers. Only now, with the advent of the so-called
"programmable world", witricity will
likely begin to become truly omnipresent, even though we don't yet know
if that might have human health consequences.
Why could wireless power pose a problem, you ask? Because of how it
relies on energy-exchanging magnetic fields. This kind of energy
transfer is no big deal when it is happening once in a while in a
limited low-power way. But as
IEEE Spectrum reports,
"How electromagnetic fields affect health is a rich subject, both for
what is known about it and what isn't," and what is known is that the
kind of magnetic fields "required to send truly useful amounts of power
over even modest distances would be above what you could reasonably
expose people to."
"Reasonably," though, is the operative word here. With the rise of
regulatory capture,
the agencies that are supposed to protect human health often take
orders from consumer products industries, not the other way around.
That's the thing: those industries often define terms like "reasonably"
not in ways that prioritize health, but in ways that serve the corporate
bottom line.
None of this is to assert that being a guinea pig is all bad. Like
some patients who submit to experimental drug therapies, we benefit from
many of the technologies that are being tested on us. As just one
example, the telecommunications technology all around us may be exposing
us to a bit more radiation, but it is also theoretically connecting the
world's physicians and scientists in ways that allow them to better
collaborate and ultimately more quickly find cures to diseases.
And if you'd still prefer to opt out of being a guinea pig, here's
the good news: in most of these cases, taking precautions doesn't mean
moving into a cave.
You can, for example, pick up a pair of computer
glasses that cut down on blue light.
Or do what you can to prevent the computer from becoming the center of
your kid's educational life, at least when she's at home. You could get a
timer to automatically shut off your wi-fi at night, and only turn it
on when you need it. Consider whether you really need to bring the whole
"programmable world" into your living space in the name of creating a
"smart" home—your dumb home is probably just fine. In other words, just
use some common sense and take some simple steps.
It's the same thing for protecting society as a whole—the public
policies to mitigate the worst effects of these technological
experiments aren't all that complicated or expensive. For consumer
products, it's stuff like warning labels. For the schoolhouse, it's a
simple refusal to try to
replace teachers with computers. And in general, it's a willingness to both
better fund regulatory agencies and to finally make those agencies
truly independent from industry.
If we're all going to be guinea pigs, that's the least we can do to
protect ourselves—and the least we should expect from those who are
supposed to be overseeing the experiments.
Posts
As
one of the most popular shows around, the finale of Breaking Bad was
always destined to become a sensation, both off and online.
