TED Conversations

Hector Rosario

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Could the increase in wireless technology be the environmental and cellular toxicity factor for the prevalence of autism in modern nations?

The idea is not my own but hoping to promote awareness for further discussion and inquiry. The references below are easily searchable.

A scientific study published in the peer-reviewed Australasian Journal of Clinical Environmental Medicine (acnem.org) warns that radio waves from cell phones may be responsible for accelerating the rise in autism among the world's children.

Dr. George Louis Carlo, co-author of the study, developed a theory that low frequency cell phone signals are harmful to cell function causing the inability to move heavy metals and toxins outside cells.

Here is a collection of other evidence on such question http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/11/1082549/-Autism-Cell-Towers-Electromagnetic-Radiation-Connection-Possibility# It presents a government study of radio waves affecting the DNA and charts showing a correlation between the increase in autism and cell phone usage.

As you may know, the media personalities, Dr. Mercola and Dr. Oz have also warned us of the possible EMR effect on children's neurological development. Dr. Oz even suggested to keep cell phones away from younger children based on some studies he saw.

There are studies that point to the possibility that cell phone signals also affect the bees neurological system and navigation.

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2012: A couple concerns: the boom in autism occurred after DSM IV was published in '94 (the closest thing to a canonical psychiatric diagnostic manual), which not only changed the criteria for a diagnosis but also defined the Aspergers variant. That doesn't mean the previous symptoms became more wide-spread. The studies on recent drops in bee populations cite cell phone radiation as interfering with the bees navigational senses, not causing DNA damage.

    Autism research is important, but I wouldn't bet on the cause being cell phones.
  • thumb
    Nov 18 2012: Have you ever noticed that whenever there is funding there is a problem?

    The fact is that Autism is not on the rise it is merely tallied differently many other categories are now thrown in with the category of autism making it look like autism is growing.

    Just Google it out Look at the articles

    A similar thing is done with household income which has changed in 30 years but the media will tell you it has been falling for 30 years, absolute BS.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: if you look at the (non-government) graphs in the link above you will see the correlation of autism rise and the rise of cell phone usage. if the theory of call phone being a factor in autism is right, you may see a plateau on autism as there is one in people getting new cell phones
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2012: And that is where you will see that this correlation is coincident and not even remotely scientific.

        Not to mention that they have an ad for Elizabeth Warren when you first go to the site. The queen of specious information.
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2012: true, but it doesn't have to be scientific to inquire if that could be the environmental causative that some wonder about autism. the purpose of the graph is not to conclude something but to ask if it is just coincidence. actually a similar coincidence is happening in other countries like Korea.
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2012: The first question has to be is what is the real data other wise you are just chasing your tail.

        When the government was funding studies into acid rain there was acid rain no more funding no more acid rain when was the last time you heard anything about acid rain.
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2012: if we had the data we wouldn't be asking the question of the possibility. yet there is some indication that radio waves could affect our dna (study with rats), cell in the brains (toxicity not released), and neurological system (bees). but a factor then on autism might be worth exploring.

          that something is not talk about it doesn't mean that it went away. it may mean that people didn't care. but certainly you will find people still exploring the angles of things, old and new. it is why many are here in Ted.
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2012: Usually the data is ignored. Nope if acid rain was important it would be on front page. Agree to disagree.
        • Nov 19 2012: Acid rain is less of a problem now because the global emission of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides has dropped considerably. Dig a little deeper before you start to make insane accusations (and no doubt projecting your own problems onto me when you'll start your reply to this comment with "do you ahve anything besides conjecture?") Now go back to the topic at hand.
  • thumb
    Nov 18 2012: I'm not going to read all of it but back in 2004 i answered a net mag Q about the effective spread of wi-fi and how it will revolutionize connectivity, Apparently i won the best response and was supposedly sent a dvd of some movie or something, which i never received. My reply just stated my belief that to much Em saturation in one area over a long period of time will give rise to slight changes in all organisms within it's field of influence, I'm not saying that your Q proves my statement but back then in nz wi-fi was looked at as the next big thing and i was laughed at in the usual post response comments by everyone even by the editor, it was a tech mag after all.

    This is an area where you won't get any adherents except in commiseration, Phones and wi-fi is too integrated now, if what you state pans out to be 97% right then it would still fall on deaf ears.

    I wonder if this is another sign of a race self limiting vehicle being employed, not consciously but a form of it?
  • Nov 19 2012: "Could the increase in wireless technology be the environmental and cellular toxicity factor for the prevalence of autism in modern nations?"

    No, it's infinitely more likely the"surge" in autism is due to actual pollution, increased testing, changing definitions and a labor market where autistic people stand out more.

    If EM-radiation from cellphones is harmful in any way it would cause cancer, not autism.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: some scientist have suggested autism is due to heavy metals toxicity in brain cells. other scientist have suggested that radio waves causes cells to shut and don't clear toxics within.
  • Nov 19 2012: As Pat points out the "epidemic" of autism is largely a difference in diagnosis as psychiatrists are not exactly devoid of self interest. The more autism there is the more need for psychiatrists. If you have a sibling who is autistic, then you are more likely to be autistic, but the autism spectrum is so broad that is almost meaningless to categorize it.

    Still---it seems incredible that only 50 years ago only one child in 10,000 was the autistic progeny of a "refrigerator" mom. Now the diagnosis is 1:88 for American children with something like 1:54 for boys.

    Even thought the science isn't there, many parents swear that their children became autistic shortly after receiving multiple vaccinations. My prejudice absent any real hard science to rely on is that autism is a combination of genetic predisposition triggered by environmental factors (assuming the diagnosis is correct) such as lead, mercury, pesticides, air fresheners, food dyes, etc.

    Cell phones contribute a relatively small amount of EM radiation compared to all the natural and man-made sources i.e. the wiring in your home. Besides, autism is typically diagnosed around age 3, long before children tend to use cell phones.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: Children's neurological system is developing at younger age and thus more susceptible to environmental factors than ours. The cell phone radio waves are able now to cross through concrete and your skull. The issue wouldn't be children under 3 using cell phones but the parents that carry both babies and cell phone on most of the time.
      • thumb
        Nov 20 2012: Microwaves can't penetrate concrete! Trust me I'm a physics teacher. In fact the single brick walls of my classroom block all cell phone reception, in spite of the fact that there are windows all down one wall. That's why shopping malls have transmitters inside them.
    • Nov 19 2012: Indeed, definitions have been changed and testing increased, this accounts for the fanning out of the spectrum, but as you also point out the number of undeniable, hardcore autism cases that doctors couldn't miss even 50 years ago, has risen as well, and this is indeed likely to be caused by chemicals in our environment and general pollution.
  • thumb
    Nov 19 2012: I would really like to see some numbers on the level of EMR exposure over time. For example the level of EMR from a cell phone is nowhere near as much as from your old analogue cordless phone you used in the 80's. Also as broadcast TV and radio goes digital the power requirements are reduced by a factor of 10 so there is less incidental exposure from that aswell. Unless you are on the phone all day the exposure from your cell phone is a very small fraction of your total exposure. You get much more from the Sun or from heating your TV dinner in the microwave oven.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: radiation from the sun or microwave doesn't cross concrete and bones at a distance with the intensity that the new 3G, 4G and LTE cell phone signals do
      • thumb
        Nov 20 2012: A typical microwave has 10 000 times the power output of a cell phone. And how many people stand right in front of them and watch their dinner go around? Typical cell phones have an average output of 1-2 hundred mW and the tower transmitters are around 100w. Broadcast tv transmitters are up to hundreds of kW. Solar radiation averages around 1000w per square metre, of which a substantial percentage is UV which definitely causes cancer. Unless your child is on the phone for several hours a day cell phone exposure is insignificant.
  • Nov 18 2012: I'll defer to Dr. Oz. Seriously doesn't anyone buy into moderation anymore?
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2012: his argument was as a precaution for parents to avoid having a cell phone on when carrying their babies as children's neurological system is developing at younger age and thus more susceptible to environmental factors than ours. The new cell phone radio waves are now able to cross through concrete and skull.