Opening the tap and water comes out; pressing a switch and the light comes on; dialing a number on a device and managing to establish a conversation with someone, who may even be thousands of kilometers away ...
Opening the tap and water comes out; pressing a switch and the light comes on; dialing a number on a device and managing to establish a conversation with someone, who may even be thousands of kilometers away? Actions as everyday as these would have seemed like witchcraft a few centuries ago. However, although in today's world most children grow up without even imagining that there was a life without the Internet, Lanzarote seems to be suffering a journey back in time.
Currently, in many houses on the island, for three and four days a week, nothing comes out of the tap. In addition, last weekend they also ran out of electricity, and the fear of blackouts has not completely abandoned Lanzarote. And to make matters worse, in areas such as Famara, telephone coverage and Internet connection have become an unattainable miracle for many, who have to walk around the town with their phones and laptops in search of a ray of coverage that connects them to the world.
The first two issues, and especially that of Inalsa, are part of the abandonment in which the institutions have plunged this island for years, ruining public companies and providing a service that is far from the first world and the 21st century.
The third has been caused by the fear itself of a possible unknown danger. The crusade that many residents undertook against mobile phone antennas bore fruit, managing to remove many devices that did not comply with current legislation or lacked licenses. But the consequence has been inevitable. The island has lost coverage, and that is suffered every day in Famara, where the last antennas were turned off, but also in many other areas, including the capital of the island, where starting and ending a conversation without the call being cut off is much more difficult today than it was a few years ago.
Fear is legitimate, and of course so is demanding that the legislation approved by the institutions be complied with. And if it was established that an antenna cannot be near a school or other sensitive places, telephone companies will have to comply, unlike what they have been doing until now, and look for alternative solutions and locations.
However, the institutions cannot ignore the problem either and should also engage in conversations with telephone operators, because coverage is now a basic and essential service, in a society in which, as has been demonstrated in Famara, almost everything depends on it. From a simple conversation, to business transactions, such as making customer reservations or being able to charge with a credit card.
Therefore, it is not enough to force companies to remove the antennas, but solutions should also be sought. And in addition, the administration would be obliged to review its own rules, which incur notable contradictions.
Most scientific studies conducted so far maintain that it has not been possible to prove that telephone antennas can cause health problems, but there are no studies that conclude that they are harmless either. And in the absence of certainties, it is logical to impose prudence. However, what kind of prudence is it to move the antennas away from schools, but not from homes, where in addition to adults there are also children, who only sleeping already spend many more hours than in educational centers.
But above all, they should consider what is the point of applying laws to control antennas, when the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has just said that the danger, in any case, may be more in the mobile phone itself.
In fact, after the study presented a few weeks ago by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the WHO has classified the electromagnetic frequency fields emitted by mobile phones as a "possibly carcinogenic" compound. That is, it is not proven that they cause cancer, but it is admitted that there is a certain risk that still needs to be investigated. In any case, the same risk that, according to this assessment by the World Health Organization, has some 250 substances, among which are coffee, diesel or acrylic fibers.
Should we therefore stop using the phone? Are we willing to give up an advance that has become essential in the daily lives of most adults, and also of many children?
Apart from demanding that the rules be complied with or revised, that is the real dilemma that must be answered. Because what does not seem logical is to demonize the antennas, when perhaps the supposed risk is closer than we think.
In fact, many studies also maintain that the use of mobile phones is much more "dangerous" in areas where there is less coverage, since the phone must operate at higher power, that is, emit more radio frequencies, to capture the signal. So, does what we are doing make any sense? Or are we condemning new technologies to the stake, as was done in the past with those accused of "witchcraft", just for fear of the unknown?
