Engaging classrooms often resonate at higher decibel levels with students, teachers, and technology complementing each other. But some in the research world are concerned that all that “energy” may not be good for the long-term health and well-being of students’ growth and development.
A study conducted by the Environmental Health Trust found that adults have thicker skulls, which slows down radio radiation to the brain, while children’s skulls are thinner and provide less protection, absorbing 10 times more radiation than adults. The study also explores some physicians’ concerns that the increased use of wireless technology in classrooms poses an ever-greater risk from electromagnetic radiation.
While most of the early studies on the adult population show that Wi-Fi emissions are low and show little harm, new studies like the recent 2022 French study conducted in 13 countries indicates otherwise. According to the results, Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth devices contributed over 50% of the overall exposure.
Compounding the problem is the fact that younger generations are exposed to laptop computers on their laps and mobile phones in their trouser pockets for extended periods of time. In both cases, science is beginning to look to the detrimental effects of Wi-Fi radiation on reproductive problems, DNA alterations, and damage to cellular structures.
The global EdTech market is expected to reach $404 billion by 2025, according to HolonIQ research, and schools will face even more demand by adding wireless technology to their education model. . As a result, the impact of radio frequencies (RF) looks set to grow, not shrink, in the future.
Some in the tech development world are ahead of the curve, taking precautions to provide a healthy buffer for the growing environment of Wi-Fi devices. One such person in charge is Daniel T. DeBaun, DefenderShield engineer, inventor, author, co-founder, and his CEO.
DeBaun has developed electromagnetic field (EMF) protection technology for mobile devices that significantly reduces the harmful effects of exposure by blocking up to 99.9% of RF. As an internationally recognized expert in shielding technology and his EMF protection, his book radiation nationprovides a complete guide to understanding radiation protection and safety.
This reporter sat down with DeBaun for a compelling conversation about his exposure to Wi-Fi and what led him to develop shielding technology. He expands on the efforts he and others are making to focus more on the unknown effects of RF on students and the wider public. summarizes the main points of
Rod Berger: What inspired you to invent and create DefenderShield in the first place, and what influences your book has?
Daniel Debaun: I have been in the electronic testing space at Bell Labs for many years. After her wife expressed concern about our sons using electronics on their laps for extended periods of time, I began to take a closer look.
Initially, I thought the electron levels were too low, but after researching the RF signal, it became clear that 3-4 hours on your lap reduced the effectiveness of sperm by 25%. I was.
This wasn’t the only time we noticed external toxins affecting our bodies. There is not much history on this subject.
I built a prototype lap shield for my sons, followed by a company called DefenderShield. From there, I keenly felt that it was a fairly immature industry. The medical silo of science did not communicate with the science of electronics development. Those who were consuming were unaware of what the research was showing.
As the company developed, it led to writing a book radiation nation It is a simplification of the complex relationship between modern electronic devices and various influences that are close to our bodies.
This book has been a conduit for many conversations with electronics-conscious people. In general, even the scientific community did not understand all the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Our bodies react to her EHS as well as multiple chemical sensitivities.
Burger: Discuss the effects and why many in the general public are unaware of the importance of RF exposure.
Debound: A preponderance of scientific evidence showing the effects of RF on human cells and how they mutate. X-rays are ionizing radiation. Initially, science generally believed that non-ionizing radiation with rated velocities in the range of 1 to 10 gigahertz, such as mobile phones and Wi-Fi, did not have the same power as X-rays. But the evidence shows otherwise, and the effects of multiple devices collectively.
Ten to fifteen years ago, we didn’t have all of these devices around us. There were no social problems. Today we have many sending devices in the same room. Does it affect me? Science says there is, but statistics have yet to catch up to show the level of importance.
That’s sort of the challenge we have for the scientific community. New data takes time to become statistically valid. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set the standard for mobile phones at 1.6 watts per kilogram over 30 years ago. It is the transmit power level. Its transmission effects were evaluated in a statistically significant 6-foot male population. But the 6-foot man is only 3% of the people currently using this technology.
A small child’s skull is soft and not dense. So the signal can go about 1-2 inches into the skull of an adult male, but pass completely through a 6-year-old. So what happens to a 6-year-old once the cellular signal has fully passed through? Hmm.
A large epidemiological study in rats and mice by the US government’s National Toxicology Program provided significant evidence that cell phone RFR affects frontal lobe and heart cancer. There is epidemiological evidence, but does science as a whole accept it? Do doctors believe it to be true? necessarily. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy also conducted the same study with the same results. The data is growing, but it’s not public domain.
Burger: Looking specifically at the school environment of the future, how can we harness innovation at will while staying healthy? What do you think are the best practices? What can be done inside large classrooms, such as shielding, to minimize the risk of wireless exposure?
Debound: Great question. One of the first things to understand is that the human body evolves in this environment. We are in the very early stages of adaptation to the human body.
In the meantime, given that adaptation is not a current option, there are certain actions to be taken in the classroom or surrounding environment. This is as easy as using an ethernet plug. With wires running to each desk, there’s no such exposure within the Wi-Fi signal.
There is also discussion about lowering power levels in these environments. If you want to build a signal that has less impact on the human body, you can spend a lot of money to create a signal that has less impact on your cells.
It can be seen that the power level is reduced with very low power transmitters, providing a clean signal to the human body. This is the evolutionary adventure we are taking with technology. But I think in time we will be able to cope with these changes.
Burger: Does it focus on systemic effects on young people and potential causes, including increased exposure? [RF]?
Debound: Human response in the classroom has increased by an order of magnitude. Children are becoming more and more destructive. the environment? What part of the environment is driving that change? Is education itself driving that change?
There is not enough evidence to definitively show that exposure to Wi-Fi in the classroom causes problems. However, some studies have shown an impact, but it’s not statistically significant, although it’s an area of interest to take a more serious look at the Bluetooth signals and transmissions he makes throughout the day on devices in the classroom. .
Burger: Are there any watchdog groups paying attention to this?
Debound: There are many parties involved. The Environmental Health Trust with Dr. Devra Davis is one group of hers. Thanks to the efforts of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. There is his BioInitiative where scientists post their research to help people understand better. That’s just a few examples.
Burger: I feel like I need a curriculum that supports educational initiatives. All over the world, he said, as STEAM and STEM advance, young people may be better educated to innovate in technology and develop more sustainable experiences.
Debound: absolutely. When I started his DefenderShied, almost all products were sold in Europe. They had half the power level of the US and were worried.
As a society, we are slowly learning about the potential effects of RF exposure. I believe that enhanced education will greatly improve our ability to respond positively. But unfortunately, research on mobile phones in the last 30 years has been seriously lacking, despite all the organizations putting pressure on the institution.
It takes years to understand the introduction of what can be toxic to our environment. I often use saturated fat as an example. Thirty years ago, a biochemist said, It’s the artificial trans fat you’re cooking that’s killing you. It takes time for society to understand the impact of the technologies we introduce into the environment.
Although the effects of Wi-Fi and other devices are not fully understood, more research and education on the effects of RF exposure seems warranted.
DeBaun was part of the first group to develop telecommunications industry standards at Bell Labs. He now uses his previous knowledge base to address health issues facing the tech sector. He and a growing number of researchers are asking if there are enough data points to update these standards. How can we be sure that increased exposure isn’t rewiring the future?
Without being pretentious and reactionary, perhaps the educational community and all stakeholders can pay more attention to the vast uncharted universe opened up by technological advances. You may thank them for being one step ahead in
Interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.