We've seen before how long it can take to recognize a risk with regard to public health. Take the obvious example: smoking. In the early 1900's, cigarette use began to rise rapidly, going unchecked for decades. It wasn't until the 1930's that (inconclusive) evidence began to be published linking the habit to lung cancer. Then, in 1950, several landmark studies were conducted which found statistically significant correlations between smoking and lung cancer. Still, it wasn't until 1964 that the U.S. Surgeon General's report definitively stated the link between the two.
Soon after came the first warning labels on packaging followed closely by TV advertising bans in the 70's. Then, in the 80's, workplace and public smoking bans began to appear due to rising public concerns regarding secondhand smoke. By the 90's, the tobacco industry had been exposed with the release of internal memos that revealed the deliberate attempts of the industry to target youth while casting doubt on the scientific literature. Today we recognize the profound risk one takes when smoking a cigarette. Although we appreciate the ability of individuals to make their own choices with regard to their health, the difference is that now we know exactly what choice is being made.
That is really what's at the center of the electromagnetic radiation debate today. Do we understand the consequences of what we're doing with regard to the unmitigated increase in EMR exposure in public and private life? The truth is, we don't. In fact, our modern understanding of electromagnetic theory doesn't begin until the late 1800's with James Clerk Maxwell's unification of the electricity and magnetism phenomena. It was only in 1873 that Maxwell actually proposed that light is an electromagnetic wave. This work on electromagnetic theory continues today and is far from settled science. The very nature of light — its wave-particle duality — is a topic that remains underserved by modern interpretations.
Some will argue that EMR-producing technology has been around for many years now and that "nothing bad has happened." This type of argument feels short-sighted. Consider the current health trends in the United States. Are things getting better or worse? Male fertility has declined markedly over the last half-century with sperm counts plummeting. This may be due to increased EMR exposure, and it may not be. The point is, we don't know for sure. Part of the issue is that the cause is likely extremely multi-faceted. EMR exposure may be one part of a much larger set of issues facing global health. Then again, it may not be.
What is severely needed in this field of research is thoughtful analysis, presented in commentary that the general public can understand, regarding the effects of chronic EMR exposure on human health. Over time, this will develop into an amalgamation of evidence that will, eventually, point to one side or the other, and the truth will win out.
Is electromagnetic radiation our friend or foe? I cannot say for certain; perhaps tomorrow we will know.