How Green is Your Smartphone?. Richard Maxwell

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ

       Call bullshit on anti-science propaganda

Outsmart Your Smartphone

      Mobile cellular communication relies on network connections. Radiofrequency radiation bounces back and forth from our phones to cell towers and wireless transmitters. Exposure to this radiation has been linked to potential health risks, including cancer. We can reduce such possibilities, even without clear guidance from the industry or its regulators.

      The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which certifies cellphone safety in the US, says “no scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses” (Federal Communications Commission, 2018). If this is true, why does it issue guidelines that limit public exposure to radiofrequency radiation? Cellular telephones must not surpass radiation levels of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), which is an average of energy absorbed by one gram of tissue according to the US testing standard (Federal Communications Commission, n.d.). This is known as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).

Be aware that the manufacturers themselves decide the safe distance between phone and human tissue to meet SAR guidelines; the government does not handle this for us. Apple says you’re safe in exceeding 1.6 W/kg of exposure if you hold a phone five centimeters from your head; Samsung says fifteen centimeters is safe; other manufacturers recommend ten centimeters. It’s up to them. That’s a problem for cellphone users, and another good reason we need to outsmart our phones.

      SAR levels matter. Most people hold phones against their heads and bodies. Studies of exposure to radio-frequency radiation at zero distance show SAR levels twice as high as the regulatory limit, and in some tests, three to four times higher. In 2017, France’s Agence nationale des fréquences (ANFR) [National Frequency Agency] found that most “phones exceed government radiation limits when tested the way they are used, next to the body” (Environmental Health Trust, 2018b). The ANFR’s study has been likened to “dieselgate,” the revelation that Volkswagen lied for years about emissions from its diesel-engine cars, which the company had rigged to emit atypically low levels in controlled conditions. “Phonegate,” as some have called it, sheds a critical light on the mendacity of the telecommunications industry.

      If SAR is so important a guideline for the safe use of a cellphone, why don’t most of us know about it?

You might be surprised to learn that your phone includes instructions about SAR levels; you just haven’t been told where to find them. In the US, the FCC requires phone manufacturers to inform consumers if their products meet regulatory guidelines for exposure levels. They comply, but in a sneaky way. Most phones have a legal notice about “RF exposure” buried in their settings. It takes five steps to find them on a typical iPhone, or you can review them on Apple’s website.⁶ Other manufacturers make it equally hard, or more difficult, to locate instructions for safe use; it’s as if they designed a feature to make smartphones stupid about this topic. Compare that to health warnings on cigarette packets, with their alarming words and graphic images.

A study conducted for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that 81 percent of Canadians did not know their government’s guidelines on cellphone use, or that phones themselves explained how to lessen radiation exposure (Mission Research, 2017; The Secret, 2017). We assume the lack of public knowledge elsewhere is similar. If the industry is required to tell us about possible health risks, but effectively conceals that information, we must ask: What else is it hiding? One way to answer that question is to review legislation around the world that compels phone manufacturers to put explicit health warnings on their packaging. France and Israel have passed such laws. But where other countries have tried, the telecommunications industry has lobbied to oppose explicit labelling. In the US and Canada, bills were proposed, then shot down under pressure from industry groups (Environmental Health Trust, 2018a).

      That leads us to a third point about personal health. A chorus of concerns has arisen around cellphone addiction. These have largely centered on children and families, with corresponding remedies that are highly individual. We review those anxieties, as well as public concerns that smartphone distraction has become a key factor in traffic injuries and deaths. Finally, we examine the possible diseases caused by exposure to radiation.

      For now, it’s important to stress that many scientific studies suggest there may be a causal link between cellphone radiofrequency radiation and a number of illnesses, including cancer. The results are not definitive. But based on the scientific knowledge we have examined, precaution is prescribed. Please be careful not to store or use your phone next to your body. Rely on wired ear phones, text, or speaker phones when possible. Outsmart your smartphone.

In general, we hope that an abiding legacy of green politics and theory will be the development and installation of the precautionary principle into everyday life and policymaking.⁷ That principle is opposed to conventional cost–benefit analysis, which looks at the pluses and minuses of consumer satisfaction versus safety. Instead, it places the burden of proof onto proponents of industrial processes to show they are environmentally safe, the idea being to avoid harm rather than deal with risks once they are already in motion: prevention, not cure.

The Greenest Smartphone is the One You Already Own

      Retaining the smartphone you already own is your greenest option. First, we point to hazards faced by extractive and factory workers who make these devices for us. Their workplace pressures intensify each time consumers order the latest model smartphone. By keeping smartphones for as long as possible, users can de-pressurize the labor process.

Second, we look at smartphones among an array of digital screen technologies that use sizeable amounts of energy and natural resources, both in their production, through the emission of greenhouse gases and hazardous pollutants, and in their useful lifetimes, because of their need for what is often coal-fired power to recharge and connect to network systems and data services.

      If we combine emissions from manufacturing and the electricity that powers network and data-storage facilities, smartphones and other so-called terminal platforms produce about 1.4 percent of the world’s total carbon footprint. Most of that happens during manufacturing; over the useful lifetime of a phone, relatively few greenhouse-gas emissions are produced (Malmodin and Lundén, 2018, pp. 28–9). Extending that life by keeping them longer makes them greener.

Otherwise, they become poisonous waste. According to the United Nations University (UNU), “Electronic waste, or e-waste, refers to all items of electrical and electronic equipment and its parts that have been discarded by its owner as waste without the intent of reuse.”⁸ When we throw smartphones away or “recycle” them, they frequently end up as toxic e-waste, the fastest-growing element in global waste streams: about 46 to 50 million metric tons, and growing by three to four percent annually. Cellphones alone comprise approximately ten percent of those figures (Baldé et al., 2018, pp. 39–40). The average period people in the global North keep their phones is less than two years. This is out of habit, not loss of functionality. Retaining them for as long as possible can lighten the flow of e-waste to an already overburdened system.

Calling Bullshit on Anti-Science Propaganda

      Like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, telecommunications firms have no compunction about using public relations to “war-game science” via campaigns that spread doubt and confusion about ecological problems, from climate change to radiofrequency radiation. The trick involves discrediting researchers who report evidence of harm, while backing scholarship that reports reassuring findings. That scam worked for tobacco corporations for decades, with disastrous results for public health.

      But by the СКАЧАТЬ