Research Paper Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis on a Report about Biological Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Public Exposure Standards 

Electronics are constantly being used around the world, and people are exposed to devices every day without knowing the effects. There are technological advancements that are continually happening, whether it is to improve software or to make our lives easier. These advancements seem only beneficial, unfortunately it comes with a dangerous and damaging side effect. As technology grows, findings and research are updated and tested to inform the public about their concerns about these developments. Scientific evidence shows electronics and other radio devises emit electromagnetic fields (EMF) which can cause biological effects in a person (Hardell, Sage 2008). They give off two types of EMF: Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Radiofrequency/ Microwave Radiation Emission (RF), in which both are health risks. These health risks consist of illnesses and damages to your body that are irreversible. The report I chose covers the potential hazards and effects that that ELF and RF can pose for public health. “The analysis was issued in 2008 by Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, a multidisciplinary journal which publishes full-length, original research reports, reviews, and preliminary communications or letters to the editor which fall within the general scope of clinical and basic medicine and pharmacology.” (Townsend 2019). The authors of the study are Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and professor who focuses on cancer causing agents and Cindy Sage known for her works and studies on how electromagnetic fields affect humans. The study was written by them and fourteen other scientists, public health and public policy experts, so it’s highly credible. The purpose of writing this rhetorical analysis on EMF is to inform myself and the audience about the effects of electronics. 

The purpose of the study was to document the scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields on biological health, whether it would be long or short term. The research was published in 2008 when there wasn’t a strong scientific evidence about whether electrons emit certain frequencies causing biological damage. Scientists focused on the main things that emit radiation, like chemicals, weapons, etc. Since scientists have not researched thoroughly with EMT, there was no proper solution that could’ve prevented this issue. These underlying issues have been going on for years now, and no one has tried to improve upon it. EMT affects your body and can cause brain tumors, acoustic neuroma, cancer, protein and gene expressions which can lead to birth defects. Thus, there must be an urgency to stop future biological damages which can lead to even more risks. 

In this study, there are several possibilities of the intended audience based on how the data was provided, the writing style, and the topic genre. The first audience can be for researchers and scientists, like radiobiologists, who have a vast interpretation and knowledge about electromagnetic fields. The vocabulary that was used in this study is complex for ordinary people to look understand such as, “tamoxifen” and “melatonin”. These are biological terms which people in the biology field will understand. The second targeted audience can be doctors and scientists who study the effects of electromagnetic fields, such as oncologist and geneticist. Electromagnetics causes illnesses like cancer, so doctors can determine and diagnose patients. The final targeted audience can be for companies who created electronics that emit these harmful rays. Overall, this study can benefit many individuals understanding on how technology can affect us mentally and physically.  

The writers of the report use the Creating A Research Space (CARS), a model they used to describe EMF and its risks and IMRAD, which is a typical format in scientific writing. The author uses this format to explain the effects of EMF to the human body. In the introduction, it explains how EMF is harmful and why it must be taken into consideration quickly which can hopefully bring attention to the epidemic. Also, in the introduction it states how scientists were only interested in thermal effects and not non-thermal exposures, which is indirect vs direct radiation. However, now scientists are researching the effects of these non–thermal emitters and the limits which we can be exposed to (Hardel, Sage 2008). The purpose of the report was to document if there is a direct correlation between EMT and human health hazards if there is an overexposure of it. To do so, the writers and 14 scientists provided a substantial amount of evidence to prove their claims that electronics emit dangerous radiations which causes damage. They gathered evidence on how ELF reduces melatonin levels which helps against Alzheimer’s disease. The electromagnetic field can directly affect the human body such as brain tumors, but in this case, it indirectly weakened the immune system. There are more evidences on how EMF causes brain tumors and genetic modifications.  

The method report uses the CARS method to explain the daily effects of EMF. The report institutes ethos by crediting other research and articles for a baseline. The report reviewed a research about the bioeffects and health levels of exposure levels which are below regulated levels. The research was about the limits that people can be exposed to these electromagnetic fields and to assess the impacts it can have on the human body if exposed to a certain period. It was written by Henry Lai, peer reviewed by experts, so the report is highly credible which establishes ethos since the authors perceived a basic understanding of the EMF. The whole research has been tested multiple times and thoroughly, so there is little to no margin for errors, making this a credible source. 

When the author establishes a niche in the second move, they demonstrate it by making a counterclaim indicating the flaws in previous research and by using logical connectors. The authors of the report use contrast terms however and but to contradict past research and demonstrate the flaws in previous experiments. According to the Environmental Health Perspective, peer reviewed journal which discusses health related matters, they give statistics on the average amount of EMF that is exposed to children each day which is roughly 3-4 mG, also they show the amount of EMF that should be regulated. Hardell and Sage use this data to show that electromagnetics does have correlation to biological health, but other metrics and variables can contribute to childhood leukemia other than exposure to ELF (Hardell, Sage).  Previous experiments only considered the independent variable of ELF, and not other factors like genetics of proteins that could cause these diseases. Later, when they proved this theory wrong, the authors used the term therefore and are needed to show the study needs extensive research to be proven true, otherwise their claim is false. 

For the third move, the author tested the effects of EMF to the human body. The paper evaluates electromagnetics and how it emits harmful non-thermal radiation which can cause bioeffects on the human body. Scientists hope to influence the audience and companies to make changes in electronics, and quickly, so it doesn’t affect future generations biological health. By doing so, the author uses logos and ethos to convince readers. Ethos was shown by them citing and crediting reliable sources which conducted extensive studies, which experts from the field conducted. Many experiments were tested in this study to strengthen their hypothesis. Logos was demonstrated by explaining the logical reasoning behind devices emitting these rays. They name well-known diseases to show readers about the risks, which can influence other to resolve this underlying issue. 

For the results of this study, the author organizes the information in sections and lists, which demonstrates logos. The author made the findings which argued if EMF affected biological health by testing many experiments. They used independent variables and controlled experiment to prove these effects. The author uses numbers and sections to demonstrate to compare the differences between the experiment with EMF and without. It was categorized into sections to show the audience the main impacts, and how and why it influences the human body. The results show a strong correlation to the authors’ vj argument and hypothesis of the hazards of electronics. 

The author makes an analysis that these electromagnetic fields that are emitted are causing damage to our body using the results of the experiment. They make this hypothesis and proved it by tested their own experiments and examining previous studies. When they experimented with EMF and how it affected the human body, they concluded that EMT and human development or damage has a direct correlation with each other. Whether it’s genetics, DNA, or protein, they concluded that EMF can damage them resulting in health hazards. They say if we are exposed to even more EMF, it can affect our and next generation’s health as well. Using the data that was shown in these experiments, the scientist analyzed the different ways EMF affects our body to find a solution. 

In the discussion, the scientists verified the effects of EMF, and how it is linked with many issues today. The EMF can be associated with well-known diseases like leukaemia, brain tumor, and cancer. EMF and RF are known to cause DNA and gene issues to plant, animal, and human cells. Although there is no real solution to this epidemic, scientists have found a temporary solution which can help reduce these effects on the body. They propose that, companies should regulate the amount of EMF that is emitted out of electronics and how we must reconstruct new power lines which doesn’t emit as much electromagnetics. This solution is only temporary but will reduce the amount of effects that these EMF devices give off. 

By writing this rhetorical analysis on this study, I have a more in-depth understanding of the effects that electronics have on the human body. It brought to my attention that every statement in the article had negative effects to us biologically, which helped me learned the true affects technology has on people. The report went in-depth of the effects of electromagnetics; however, it was unclear what specific tests they used in order to justify their claim. They used different writing style like the IMRAD format which I was unfamiliar with, to explain what EMF are and how they affect our body. They convinced the readers in an informal way unlike argumentative essays, where it is very bias. Overall, I have learnt how everyday technology can leave a negative impact in our future society. 

Page Break 

REFERENCES 

 

 

 

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.