So got the latest iPhone and accessories? That will definitely speed productivity and social connections. Do you have children who are electronically savvy with these devices? Depending on who is doing the research, there may be a mixed bag of OOOHS and OH NOOOs.

Here we explain. Most of our speedy, high tech devices are powered by Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs). Cindy Sage, MA, and Nancy Evans, BS explain in their handout prepared for a website called Healthy Schools in 2011 in detail the kinds of EMFs that we encounter everyday:

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) are generated from appliances and other items that  use electricity (power frequency fields).

Radiofrequency (RF-EMF) is generated by wireless technologies such as cellular and cordless phones.

“Dirty electricity” is a term used to describe low kilohertz frequency fields that can be thought of as an unintentional RF pollutant on electrical wiring and into living space. Power is “dirty” or polluted when it contains the high frequency signals flowing through overloaded wires, and not just the clean 60 Hz power that’s created at the source.

We are all aware of the benefits of modernization and upgrading to the latest gadgetry. We are able to cram as much work/leisure/information as possible in the shortest amount of time. It improves productivity, increases quantity of life skills, and promotes connectivity only science fiction writers used to dream about.  Ironically (good or bad), in 2010 MIT neuroscientists have now shown they can influence those judgments by interfering with activity in a specific brain region — a finding that helps reveal how the brain constructs morality. The researchers, led by Rebecca Saxe, MIT assistant professor
of brain and cognitive sciences disrupted activity brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp.  The researchers used a noninvasive technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to selectively interfere with brain activity in the right TPJ. The magnetic field applied to a small area of the skull creates weak electric currents that impede nearby brain cells’ ability to fire normally, but the effect is only temporary.

They found that the subjects’ ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people’s intentions was impaired. The researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments.

So EMFs literally can assist in changing our minds, literally. How about our health? And our young people’s development?

A report commissioned by T-Mobile and Deutsche Telecom MobilNet GmbH prepared in 2000 reviews effects such as gene toxicity, cellular processes, effects on the immune system, central nervous system, hormone systems and connections with cancer and infertility. This was utilized by the Commonwealth Club of California’s Program on Health Effects of Cell Phones, Wireless Technologies & Electromagnetic Fields With Leading Experts in November 2010.

In their study, Dr Kerstin Hennies, Dr H.‐Peter Neitzke and Dr Hartmut Voigt in behalf of the Telecom companies found:

1. Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system, for which there is only the one epidemiological study so far, examining the actual use of mobile phones.

2. Damaging effects on the immune system which can aid the development of illnesses as demonstrated higher secretions of stress hormones in humans.

3. Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines.

4. The terms ‘electrosensitivity’ or ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ describe disturbances of well‐being and impairments of health, such as they are suffered by certain sensitive people when working with or being in the presence of devices and equipment emitting electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.

They also conclude: “A particular problem in this exposure group is posed by children and adolescents, not only because their organism is still developing and therefore particularly susceptible, but also because many adolescents have come to be the most regular users of mobile phones. Advertising towards this population group should be banned. Furthermore, particular efforts should be made to lower the exposures during calls. It would be recommendable to conduct (covert) advertising campaigns propagating the use of headsets. It would also be important to develop communications and advertising aiming at minimising the exposures created by carrying mobile phones in standby mode on the body.”

That was in 2000. That is not the case in 2015. Covert would not be the word for the in-your-hand ads aimed to the youngest demographic possible (e.g. no more teen data overages…hint hint). So what to do?

Here’s the practical, scientific approach recommended by experts: Use a corded phone (land line) as your regular telephone. If you need to use a cordless phone or cell phone, use a headset (wired only) whenever possible and/or use your phone on speakerphone. Text rather than talk. Keep your calls very brief, and hold your cell phone away from your head and body, especially when the phone is connecting your call. Children should not use cell phones or cordless phones. Studies show children have a five-fold risk of malignant brain tumors in a shorter time than adults. 

The other recommendation? Healthy servings on Hope. The brain on hope supports a growing body of scientific evidence that points to the conclusion that optimism may be hardwired by evolution into the human brain. The science of optimism, once scorned as an intellectually suspect province of pep rallies and smiley faces, is opening a new window on the workings of human consciousness. What it shows could fuel a revolution in psychology, as the field comes to grips with accumulating evidence that our brains are constantly being shaped by the future.

Findings from a study  conducted a few years ago with prominent neuroscientist Elizabeth Phelps and Tali Sharot suggest that directing our thoughts of the future toward the positive is a result of our frontal cortex’s communicating with subcortical regions deep in our brain. The frontal cortex, a large area behind the forehead, is the most recently evolved part of the brain. It is larger in humans than in other primates and is critical for many complex human functions such as language and goal setting.

Using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, the researchers recorded brain activity in volunteers as they imagined specific events that might occur to them in the future. Some of the events were desirable (a great date or winning a large sum of money), and some were undesirable (losing a wallet, ending a romantic relationship). The volunteers reported that their images of sought-after events were richer and more vivid than those of unwanted events.

This matched the enhanced activity observed in two critical regions of the brain: the amygdala, a small structure deep in the brain that is central to the processing of emotion, and the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC), an area of the frontal cortex that modulates emotion and motivation. The rACC acts like a traffic conductor, enhancing the flow of positive emotions and associations. The more optimistic a person was, the higher the activity in these regions was while imagining positive future events (relative to negative ones) and the stronger the connectivity between the two structures.

The positive physiological effects of hope are well-documented, most recently by CNN in 2013  in Jerome Groopman’s “The Anatomy of Hope,” where he writes: “Researchers are learning that a change in mind-set has the power to alter neurochemistry.”  His research also showed that during the course of illness, belief and expectation have an impact on the nervous system which, in turn, sets off a chain reaction that makes improvement and recovery more likely. Groopman observed that hope does not just involve a mind-to-body connection, but also a body-to-mind connection, where neural input about one’s physical condition serves as a moderator of positive and negative emotions.

Shane Lopez, author of the new book “Making Hope Happen,” believes hope is the stuff of change, recovery and healing. Hope is half optimism, Lopez explains. The other half is the belief in the power that you can make it so.There is a profound difference between hoping and wishing, he continues. Wishing encourages passivity, whereas hope represents an active stance.

“Wishing is the fantasy that everything is going to turn out OK. Hoping is actually showing up for the hard work.”

And it is hard work to find moderation between technological use and traditional, generalist methods of living. A line needs to be drawn for generations after us to have a chance at a future before they can manipulate it, or else all the forward thinking and efficiency cramming we did in our heyday for them is mismatched and misaligned. Balancing between picking up a book with pages AND including one or two websites for research creates a nifty scale bridging the survival rate of the future and wisdom from longevity of the past.