Are studies the only way to ascertain whether microwaves are harmful?

Studies are based on a Western concept: the “scientific method.” This consists of formulating a hypothesis, then doing experiments to test it. If the result comes out the same every time, the hypothesis is considered proved.

It has a certain common-sense appeal, but the scientific method was not, as Western science would have us believe, handed down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments. It’s just a convention that was agreed on in the early part of the twentieth century. There are other conventions that are equally valid and in some ways superior.

One of the problems with the scientific method is its reliance on data. It’s a very mechanistic, quantitative approach. Some things — perhaps the most important things — can’t be quantified or measured precisely.

Another problem, as anyone who has ever glanced at a scientific paper knows, is that it provides results that are often intelligible only to specialists. Studies are often arcane and of limited applicability. Because of this, they can be like the blind men and the elephant — one study shows one thing, and another shows something contradictory. It later turns out both are true under certain circumstances. But one can never account for all circumstances.

The methodology used may leave the validity of a study open to attack, especially by those whose only interest is mercenary. Industries invariably attack the validity and methods of studies that show harm from their products. Even peer review is no assurance of validity.

The scientific method requires replication to confirm results. But some studies don’t lend themselves to precise replication, which again leaves them open to attack.

Finally, the way research is carried on today unfortunately makes it subject to manipulation by vested interests.

What’s the alternative?

An equally valid convention forms the basis for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM): the concept of yin and yang, the contracting and expanding forces of the universe.

Looking at nature, we see that everything exists on a continuum between two poles: summer and winter, day and night, hot and cold, man and woman, positive and negative, active and passive. Nature always seeks a balance between the two poles.

Environmentalism and ecology are about planetary balance. Holistic health techniques are about restoring the body’s internal balance, to allow it to heal. From this point of view, we can see that anything we do to disrupt this balance — and our society consists more and more of disruptions to this balance — is harmful to our health and should be avoided.

This includes electromagnetic energy, which is yang, or expanding and activating — producing a yin, or contracting and lethargizing effect. For example, light is electromagnetic energy. If you spend several hours in the sun at midday during the summer, absorbing the sun’s yang energy, you may experience the yin condition of exhaustion and the need to sleep. The extreme yang energy of a nuclear bomb, which causes atoms to break apart, produces the extreme yin reaction of death in humans who are exposed to the radiation. Less powerful radiation, such as microwaves, may not produce such a dramatic reaction, but a reaction is inevitable.

We minimize exposure to sunlight. We minimize exposure to x-rays. The same idea applies to microwaves — which means avoiding a lot of the “conveniences” of modern life, such as cell phones and microwave meters. Even though the electrical energy may be low, the body is a low-voltage device, and it doesn’t take much to influence it, especially if the exposure occurs over a long period. (In Western terms, the body perceives it as a constant, low-level assault on the immune system.) Changes happen slowly, sometimes imperceptibly—until eventually a problem appears, which we may not connect with the radiation.

The assessment can be taken to finer degrees of analysis, but this isn’t necessary for an overall evaluation. Determination of harm does not rest only with science.