Well, not according to the evidence we have so far, that is…
Your Back Page scribbler has always been intrigued by the tin-foil hat brigade.
The idea that wearing metallic headgear of some sort can block electromagnetic signals interfering with the brain stems back to a science fiction story, The Tissue-Culture King, published in 1927 and written by Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous Huxley of Brave New World fame.
The tin-foil hat (typically made from aluminium foil) has since become a pop-culture trope, acting as a handy caricature for conspiracy-theory followers and other folks displaying paranoid tendencies.
The belief, however, that the electromagnetic fields used for communications, such as cell phones and radio and television broadcasting, might be somehow playing havoc with our grey matter remains remarkably resilient.
In particular, the rapid rise and ubiquity of mobile phones soon prompted persistent fears that their use could increase the risk of brain cancer, among other things.
In an attempt to address these long-standing concerns, the World Health Organisation had helpfully sponsored more than a dozen in-depth reviews of the current scientific literature related to this issue, the findings of which have been published this month in the New Zealand Medical Journal.
Unsurprisingly, but much to the disbelief of the tin-hatters, the review of studies finds “no good evidence” of health risks posed by electromagnetic fields to humans.
But there are a few “buts”. In fact, just enough “buts”, we suspect, to fuel the suspicions of the conspiracy tribes that a secretive world government, or some such other all-powerful nefarious cabal, is still seeking to control our minds.
For instance, the WHO (and let’s face it, not even the current US president trusts that mob), said many of the studies that were reviewed were “limited”, making them difficult to prove the absence of risk.
What’s more, the analysis said there were some animal experimental studies which showed increases in “certain types of cancer in rats, and some effects on pregnancy outcomes and fertility”.
The WHO was at pains to point out, however, that as “no effects have been shown in humans these results may not apply to people”.
But they would say that, wouldn’t they.
Beam your theories directly into the unprotected brain of Holly@medicalrepublic.com.au.
