Technology World Explores Impact On Student Health

An engaging classroom often resonates at a higher decibel level with students, teachers, and technology complimenting one another. However, some in the research world are concerned that all of that ‘energy’ may not be good for the long-term health and well-being of student growth and development.

Research conducted by Environmental Health Trust suggests that although adult skulls are thicker and slow down wireless radiation to the brain, children’s skulls are thinner, with less protection absorbing ten times the radiation of adults. The research further examines some doctors’ concerns that the increased usage of wireless technology in classrooms presents a greater risk from electromagnetic radiation than ever before.

While the lion’s share of early studies on adult populations indicate that Wi-Fi radiation is low and exhibits little harm, new research like a recent 2022 french study in 13 countries shows otherwise. According to the results, Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth devices contributed to more than 50% of the total exposure.

Adding to the issue is the exposure to laptop computers placed on the laps of youth for extended intervals and cellphones set in pant pockets. In both cases, science is now catching on to the detrimental effects of Wi-Fi radiation on reproductive issues, altered DNA, and cell structure damage.

With the global EdTech market looking to reach $404B by 2025, according to HolonIQ’s research, schools will be facing even more demands in wireless technologies added to teaching models. As a result, the effects of radiofrequency (RF) look to grow rather than shrink in the future.

Some inside the technology development world are getting ahead of the curve with preventative measures to provide healthy buffers to the growing landscape of Wi-Fi devices. One such person leading the charge is Daniel T. DeBaun, engineer, inventor, author, co-founder, and CEO of DefenderShield.

DeBaun developed electromagnetic fields (EMF) protection technology for mobile devices that drastically reduces the harmful effects of exposure by blocking up to 99.9% of RF. As an internationally recognized expert in shielding technologies and EMF protection, his book, Radiation Nation, provides a complete guide to understanding radiation protection and safety.

This reporter sat down with DeBaun for a compelling conversation on Wi-Fi exposure and what led him to develop shield technologies. He expands on the efforts he and others are making to focus more on the unknown effects of RF on students and the greater population. Below are condensed takeaways from a very eye-opening discussion.

Rod Berger: What initially compelled you to invent and produce DefenderShield and what is the impact your book is receiving?

Daniel DeBaun: I was in the electronic testing space for Bell Labs for years. After my wife expressed concern that my sons were using electronics on their laps for extended periods, I began to look closer.

I initially thought the electronic levels were too low, but after research on RF signals, it became apparent that 25% of sperm became less effective after 3-to-4 hours on the lap.

It wasn’t the only case that I noticed external toxins affecting the body. Interestingly, I also noted that devices have only been close to our bodies over the last 10 years. There isn’t much history on the subject.

I made a prototype lap shield for my boys, and then the company DefenderShield followed. From there, I started realizing that it was a fairly immature industry. The silo of science on the medical side was not communicating with the science of electronics development. Those who were consuming were unaware of what the research was showing.

As we evolved the company, it led to the writing of the book Radiation Nation which represents a simplified version of the complex relationship between modern electronics in our lives near our bodies and the various impacts.

The book became a conduit for many conversations with people sensitive to electronics. Even the scientific community, in general, did not understand all the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Our bodies respond to EHS similarly to multiple chemical sensitivity.

Berger: Talk more about the effects and why many in the general public are unaware of the significance of RF exposure.

DeBaun: A preponderance of evidence in science that shows RF’s impact on the human cell and how the cell mutates. X-rays are ionized radiation. At first, science generally believed that non-ionizing radiation, at lower-rated speeds like a cellphone or Wi-Fi, in the 1-to-10 Gigahertz range, didn’t have the same power as an X-ray. But evidence shows otherwise and the impact multiple devices can have collectively. Science backs the effect of mutating cells, and it doesn’t take much of a signal.

Ten to fifteen years ago, we didn’t have all these devices around us. We didn’t have a problem as a society. Today, we have many transmitting devices in the same room. Is there an impact? Science says there is, but statistics have yet to catch up to demonstrate the level of significance.

That’s sort of the challenge we have with the science community. New data is slow to take effect statistically. For instance, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set the cellphone standard over 30 years ago at 1.6 watts per kilogram. That’s the power level of transmission. The effects of that transmission were assessed on a statistically significant six-foot male population. But a six-foot male only represents 3% of those who use the technology today.

Little children have craniums that are soft and not as dense. So while a signal might enter an adult male’s skull about one to two inches, it goes completely through a six-year-old. So, the question might be, what happens to a six-year-old when a cell signal goes entirely through? Unfortunately, we don’t know because the technology hasn’t been around long enough to fully determine the effect and show correlating statistics.

There were extensive epidemiology studies with rats and mice by the U.S. government’s National Toxicology Program with significant evidence of cellphone RFR affecting frontal lobe and heart cancer. While there is epidemiology-based evidence, does science as a whole accept it? Does the medical doctor believe it’s true? Not necessarily. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy did the same study, with identical results. There’s a growing amount of data, but it’s not in the public domain.

Berger: Looking specifically at the school environment moving forward, how can we utilize innovations at our disposal while remaining healthy? What would you consider to be best practices? What can be done inside classrooms at a large scale, such as shielding, to minimize the risk of wireless exposure?

DeBaun: Wonderful question. One of the first things to understand is that the human body evolves in this environment. We’re at the very early stages of an adaptation to the human body.

In the meantime, considering adaptation is not an option presently, there are specific actions to take in a classroom or any ambient environment. For example, you could eliminate the wireless connection by using wired connections—a simple thing to do using an ethernet plug. You don’t have that exposure within a Wi-Fi signal if you have a piece of wire that’s running to each desk.

There’s also an argument about reducing the power levels in those environments. If you want to build a less impactful signal to the human body, you can spend a lot of money and create one that is less intrusive to the cell. But that’s far away.

I can see power levels reducing with very low power transmitters, providing cleaner signals to the human body. This is an evolutionary adventure we’re on with technology. But in time, I suspect we’ll be able to deal with these changes.

Berger: Are we focused on the systemic impacts on young people and the potential causes to include increased exposure [RF]?

DeBaun: There’s an order of magnitude increase with human response in the classroom. Kids are getting more disruptive. Is it environmental? What part of the environment is creating that change? Is education itself making that change?

No sufficient evidence would clearly state that exposure to Wi-Fi in a classroom will create a problem. But some studies show an impact, yet they’re not statistically significant. However, it’s an interesting area to look at more seriously with Bluetooth signals and transmissions occurring with equipment inside the classroom all day.

Berger: Are there watchdog groups out there that are paying attention to this?

DeBaun: There are many involved. Environmental Health Trust with Dr. Devra Davis is one group. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s efforts are playing a part. There’s BioInitiative, scientists posting research, so people can better understand. That’s just to name a few.

Berger: It feels like we would need a curriculum to support education initiatives. With STEAM and STEM advances worldwide, maybe young people can be educated to innovate and develop a more sustainable experience with technology.

DeBaun: Absolutely. When I started DefenderShied, almost all our products were sold in Europe because they were more cognizant of the problems related to exposure. They had half the power level of the U.S., and they were worried.

We’re slowly learning as a society about the potential impacts of RF exposure. My belief is that with increased education our ability to respond proactively will greatly improve. But unfortunately, even with all the organizations pressuring the institutions, research for the last 30 years on cellphones has been seriously lacking.

It takes years to understand the introduction of something in our environment that can be toxic. I often use saturated fats as an example. Thirty years ago, a biochemist said, “It’s not the eggs you’re eating; it’s the artificial trans fats you’re cooking in that’s killing you.” Yet, it only became banned in the U.S. a few years ago. It takes time for a society to understand the impact of the technologies we introduce into our environments.

While the effects of Wi-Fi and other devices are not fully understood, more examination and education around the effects of RF exposure seems warranted.

DeBaun was part of the initial cohort that developed the telecommunications industry standards at Bell Labs. He now uses his previous knowledge base to address health issues facing the technology space. He and a growing number of researchers are asking if we have enough data points to update those standards. If the industry isn’t sure, how can the EdTech community be confident that increased Wi-Fi and Bluetooth exposure aren’t rewiring futures?

Without becoming too hyperbolic and reactionary, perhaps the education community and all stakeholders could pay more attention to the vast universe of unknowns presented by technological advances. The next generation of children might just thank them for staying one step ahead in protective measures.

Interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.