Think: Green Cell Phone. Typically the first things that come to mind are their energy efficiency, the elimination of toxins in their manufacturing, their recyclability, and so on. But what about their radiation emissions? The Environmental Working Group has released a website that sorts through cell phones and shows the emissions levels of over 1,000 cell phone models. While it's not necessarily time to strap on a tinfoil hat, it is a good idea to take a gander at some of the numbers.
The group states:
Recent studies find significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer. The state of the science is provocative and troubling, and much more research is essential. We at Environmental Working Group are still using our cell phones, but we also believe that until scientists know much more about cell phone radiation, it's smart for consumers to buy phones with the lowest emissions.
And so, they've today released their Cell Phone Radiation Guide. You can look up your model of phone, check out the phones with the least and most emissions, read through available research, and find out how to reduce your exposure levels.
Some of the results even from the same companies are interesting. For instance, a couple of the the Blackberry Storm models have some of the lowest emissions ratings, while a couple of the Blackberry Curve models have some of the highest. The Blackberry Storm 9500 Smartphone has a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 0.57 W/KG while the Blackberry Curve 8300 Smartphone has a SAR of 1.51 W/KG.
The best phone for low radiation on the Environmental Working Group's guide is the Nokia 9300i, and the worst is the Kyocera Jax S1300. My LG Dare ranks at 1.09 W/KG. A fair mid-range that doesn't make me want to run out of the room when I hit "send" on a text message.
The group also encourages users to take action on the issue, providing a form for people to fill out that encourages the FCC and FDA to require emissions information on phones, and do anything possible to reduce emissions in the first place.
While the debate about cell phone radiation emissions and their health impacts is still a hearty one, until we have more science around radiation emissions from cell phones, we might as well err on the side of caution. The Environmental Working Group's new database helps you do just that. Plus it's just interesting to sort through.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Cell Phone Radiation Standards Outdated Says U.S. Watchdog
Some mobile phones emit much higher levels of potentially cancer causing radiation than others according to a new study by a US consumer watchdog, which warns U.S. cell phone radiation standards are outdated.
Environmental Working Group's (EWG) research team has assembled the most comprehensive online consumer guide ever to cell phone radiation, rating more than 1,000 cell phones marketed in the U.S.
"We would like to be able to say that cell phones are safe," said Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist and lead author of the study. "But we can't. The most recent science, while not conclusive, raises serious issues about the cancer risk of cell phone use that must be addressed through further research. In the meantime, consumers can take steps to reduce exposure."
She says recent studies have found significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer.
Dr Naidenko said the online list of mobile phone radiation emissions will help consumers make informed decisions about which cell phones to buy.
EWG says it has compiled the guide, based on technical data provided by manufacturers, to fill the information gap left by the U.S. government's failure to require cell phone makers and vendors to disclose emissions levels on labels or in-store advertising displays.
"Better consumer information is vital. Recent scientific studies have produced evidence linking brain and salivary gland tumors to cell phone use. The state of the science, while far from definitive, is provocative and troubling and requires more research."
Public health officials' concerns about the possible dangers of radiofrequency emissions are intensifying as wireless devices proliferate. According to the CTIA Wireless Association, an international industry group, U.S. wireless subscribers numbered 270.3 million -- 87 percent of Americans -- as of December 2008, a 30 percent jump in three years.
Some 60 percent of the global population -- 4 billion people -- subscribe to wireless services, according to Cellular News, an online global industry news outlet.
Health agencies in six nations -- Switzerland, Germany, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Finland -- have issued warnings to limit cell phone use, particularly by children, whose softer, thinner skulls are less able to shield the brain from radiation. Scientists have found that children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.
EWG says its analysis of possible public health risks of cell phone radiation culminates a 10-month investigation of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, government advisories and industry documents.
It says it has concluded current U.S. cell phone radiation standards, set by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and based largely on 1992 cell phone industry recommendations, are outdated and allow 20 times more radiation to penetrate the head than the rest of the body.
EWG says it urges the FCC to upgrade its standards to take account of the newest scientific evidence and also increasing cell phone use by children.
"The first cell phones were marketed to adults," Naidenko said. "But today, children are just as likely to own a cell phone as a video game, baseball or bicycle."
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which tracks cell phone use among U.S. children between 12 and 17 years old, last year (2008) 71 percent of tweens and teens owned cell phones and more than half use the device daily.
EWG urged concerned consumers to take action and tell the federal government that cell phone makers should be required to disclose each phone's radiation output on the label.
The report also offers safety tips for reducing cell phone radiation exposure. Among them:
- Use headsets and the speakerphone option if available.
- Text more, talk less.
- Stay off the phone when few bars indicate a weak signal.
The EWG guide uses easy-to-read graphics to illustrate each phone's radiofrequency emissions, enabling consumers to make quick comparisons of radiation output of various wireless devices. The url for the report: http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
EWG's top 10 phones, based on low emissions:
1. Samsung Impression (SGH-a877) [AT&T]
2. Motorola RAZR V8 [CellularONE]
3. Samsung SGH-t229 [T-Mobile]
4. Samsung Rugby (SGH-a837) [AT&T]
5. Samsung Propel Pro (SGH-i627) [AT&T]
6. Samsung Gravity (SGH-t459) [CellularONE, T-Mobile]
7. T-Mobile Sidekick [T-Mobile]
8. LG Xenon (GR500) [AT&T]
9. Motorola Karma QA1 [AT&T]
10. Sanyo Katana II [Kajeet]
EWG's list of highest radiation phones:
1. Motorola MOTO VU204 [Verizon Wireless]
2. T-Mobile myTouch 3G [T-Mobile]
3. Kyocera Jax S1300 [Virgin Mobile]
4. Blackberry Curve 8330 [Sprint, U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless, MetroPCS]
5. Motorola W385 [U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless]
6. T-Mobile Shadow [T-Mobile]
7. Motorola C290 [Sprint, Kajeet]
8. Motorola i335 [Sprint]
9. Motorola MOTO VE240 [Cricket, MetroPCS]
10. Blackberry Bold 9000 [AT&T]
Environmental Working Group's (EWG) research team has assembled the most comprehensive online consumer guide ever to cell phone radiation, rating more than 1,000 cell phones marketed in the U.S.
"We would like to be able to say that cell phones are safe," said Olga Naidenko, EWG Senior Scientist and lead author of the study. "But we can't. The most recent science, while not conclusive, raises serious issues about the cancer risk of cell phone use that must be addressed through further research. In the meantime, consumers can take steps to reduce exposure."
She says recent studies have found significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer.
Dr Naidenko said the online list of mobile phone radiation emissions will help consumers make informed decisions about which cell phones to buy.
EWG says it has compiled the guide, based on technical data provided by manufacturers, to fill the information gap left by the U.S. government's failure to require cell phone makers and vendors to disclose emissions levels on labels or in-store advertising displays.
"Better consumer information is vital. Recent scientific studies have produced evidence linking brain and salivary gland tumors to cell phone use. The state of the science, while far from definitive, is provocative and troubling and requires more research."
Public health officials' concerns about the possible dangers of radiofrequency emissions are intensifying as wireless devices proliferate. According to the CTIA Wireless Association, an international industry group, U.S. wireless subscribers numbered 270.3 million -- 87 percent of Americans -- as of December 2008, a 30 percent jump in three years.
Some 60 percent of the global population -- 4 billion people -- subscribe to wireless services, according to Cellular News, an online global industry news outlet.
Health agencies in six nations -- Switzerland, Germany, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Finland -- have issued warnings to limit cell phone use, particularly by children, whose softer, thinner skulls are less able to shield the brain from radiation. Scientists have found that children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.
EWG says its analysis of possible public health risks of cell phone radiation culminates a 10-month investigation of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, government advisories and industry documents.
It says it has concluded current U.S. cell phone radiation standards, set by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and based largely on 1992 cell phone industry recommendations, are outdated and allow 20 times more radiation to penetrate the head than the rest of the body.
EWG says it urges the FCC to upgrade its standards to take account of the newest scientific evidence and also increasing cell phone use by children.
"The first cell phones were marketed to adults," Naidenko said. "But today, children are just as likely to own a cell phone as a video game, baseball or bicycle."
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which tracks cell phone use among U.S. children between 12 and 17 years old, last year (2008) 71 percent of tweens and teens owned cell phones and more than half use the device daily.
EWG urged concerned consumers to take action and tell the federal government that cell phone makers should be required to disclose each phone's radiation output on the label.
The report also offers safety tips for reducing cell phone radiation exposure. Among them:
- Use headsets and the speakerphone option if available.
- Text more, talk less.
- Stay off the phone when few bars indicate a weak signal.
The EWG guide uses easy-to-read graphics to illustrate each phone's radiofrequency emissions, enabling consumers to make quick comparisons of radiation output of various wireless devices. The url for the report: http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
EWG's top 10 phones, based on low emissions:
1. Samsung Impression (SGH-a877) [AT&T]
2. Motorola RAZR V8 [CellularONE]
3. Samsung SGH-t229 [T-Mobile]
4. Samsung Rugby (SGH-a837) [AT&T]
5. Samsung Propel Pro (SGH-i627) [AT&T]
6. Samsung Gravity (SGH-t459) [CellularONE, T-Mobile]
7. T-Mobile Sidekick [T-Mobile]
8. LG Xenon (GR500) [AT&T]
9. Motorola Karma QA1 [AT&T]
10. Sanyo Katana II [Kajeet]
EWG's list of highest radiation phones:
1. Motorola MOTO VU204 [Verizon Wireless]
2. T-Mobile myTouch 3G [T-Mobile]
3. Kyocera Jax S1300 [Virgin Mobile]
4. Blackberry Curve 8330 [Sprint, U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless, MetroPCS]
5. Motorola W385 [U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless]
6. T-Mobile Shadow [T-Mobile]
7. Motorola C290 [Sprint, Kajeet]
8. Motorola i335 [Sprint]
9. Motorola MOTO VE240 [Cricket, MetroPCS]
10. Blackberry Bold 9000 [AT&T]
Friday, March 13, 2009
Radiation from mobile phones amplified in human cells
Physicists in Spain have developed a model that analyses how electromagnetic radiation absorbed by the body is affected by the shape and orientation of our cells. The new model proposed by Jose Luis Sebastián and colleagues at the University of Complutense more realistically represents the shapes of cells and their electromagnetic influence on each other. The researchers found that the cell geometry and interactions strongly affect the strength of the electric field and the power absorbed in human tissue (J L Sebastián et al 2001 Physics in Medicine and Biology 46 213).
Earlier studies used simplistic models that assume human cells are spherical. But many cells - for example, muscular and red blood cells - are not spherical. Sebastián's team therefore developed a more sophisticated model that accounts for cells that are shaped like rods, cylinders and rugby balls. "If we are to understand the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, it is essential we consider the combined effects of shape and cell interaction", says Sebastián. The researchers investigated the effects of radiation from 900 to 2450 MHz - the range we are exposed to by mobile phones, microwave ovens, and police and air-traffic radar.
Sebastián and co-workers found that the electric fields in ellipsoidal and cylindrical cells were higher than those observed in the simulations of spherical cells. They also noticed that polarizing effects in cells aligned with the electric field reinforce the field in the cell wall. A further refinement that included the effects of water bound within the cell wall showed that, for all cell shapes, the electric field was higher than simpler models predicted.
The current study was performed at a microscopic level, however, and research into the effects of mobile phones are usually based on whole biological structures. "It would be possible to consider a tissue as an aggregate of cells, but I think that a realistic simulation of the electric field would be almost impossible", Sebastián told PhysicsWeb. "But our research could provide better information on radiation exposure effects and possibly establish lower acceptable levels for radiation from mobile phones".
Mobile phones: is there a health hazard?
What kind of radiation do mobile phones use?
Mobile phones produce radiofrequency (RF) radiation that is part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Most mobile phones transmit and receive RF radiation at frequencies of between 825 and 915 megahertz (MHz).
Known effects
Scientists have known for a long time about the ability of RF radiation to cause heating, which can lead to severe health effects on the body such as fatigue, reduced mental concentration and cataracts if exposed to very high levels. These effects are known as thermal effects, some of which can be created by subjecting a person to a warm environment.
RF exposure levels
The Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2002) specifies limits on exposure to RF radiation from various sources, including mobile phones. The level at which these limits are set is much lower than the levels at which any thermal (heating) effects can occur.
If the mobile phone is installed in a vehicle with a vehicle mounted antenna, the Standard allows the RF levels to be higher than the levels near a handheld mobile phone. This is because the vehicle mounted antenna is further away from the user than the antenna of a hand held mobile phone.
Hands free kits allow people to make phone calls without having to hold the mobile phone next to their head. The user is then free to use both hands to perform other tasks. Due to the increased separation between the antenna and the user’s head, RF exposure to the head is reduced by about 100 times when compared to normal mobile phone use.
Can mobile phones cause headaches?
Some users of mobile phones complain of sensations of heating, headaches and nausea when using their mobile phone. However, whether these effects can result from the RF levels associated with mobile phones has not been verified by scientific studies.
Some research has shown that RF radiation levels below the limits specified in the Standard can cause certain biological effects but has not established that these biological effects can adversely affect health. It is important to know the difference between biological and health effects, for example, moving from near sea level to somewhere in the mountains causes more blood cells to be made - a biological effect but not a health effect.
What about cancer?
In recent years attention has been focussed on the possibility that long term exposure to RF radiation may be responsible for serious health effects, such as cancer. Research continues to be undertaken on several fronts including the study of human populations and laboratory experiments on cells and tissues, and on rats and mice. While some studies have found effects associated with exposure to RF radiation, other studies have not shown such effects. To date, this research has not provided substantive evidence that exposure to RF radiation typical of the levels around mobile phones can cause cancer in humans.
Other risks
RF radiation from mobile phones can affect the operation of sensitive electronic equipment such as aircraft navigation systems and medical equipment. This may indirectly endanger the lives of people through the failure of these electronic systems and warnings to turn mobile phones off are given in aircraft and hospitals.
Conclusion
Although more research into the effects of RF radiation is being undertaken to answer unresolved questions, there is no convincing evidence that prolonged exposure to very low levels of RF radiation causes any adverse health effects.
Mobile phones produce radiofrequency (RF) radiation that is part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Most mobile phones transmit and receive RF radiation at frequencies of between 825 and 915 megahertz (MHz).
Known effects
Scientists have known for a long time about the ability of RF radiation to cause heating, which can lead to severe health effects on the body such as fatigue, reduced mental concentration and cataracts if exposed to very high levels. These effects are known as thermal effects, some of which can be created by subjecting a person to a warm environment.
RF exposure levels
The Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2002) specifies limits on exposure to RF radiation from various sources, including mobile phones. The level at which these limits are set is much lower than the levels at which any thermal (heating) effects can occur.
If the mobile phone is installed in a vehicle with a vehicle mounted antenna, the Standard allows the RF levels to be higher than the levels near a handheld mobile phone. This is because the vehicle mounted antenna is further away from the user than the antenna of a hand held mobile phone.
Hands free kits allow people to make phone calls without having to hold the mobile phone next to their head. The user is then free to use both hands to perform other tasks. Due to the increased separation between the antenna and the user’s head, RF exposure to the head is reduced by about 100 times when compared to normal mobile phone use.
Can mobile phones cause headaches?
Some users of mobile phones complain of sensations of heating, headaches and nausea when using their mobile phone. However, whether these effects can result from the RF levels associated with mobile phones has not been verified by scientific studies.
Some research has shown that RF radiation levels below the limits specified in the Standard can cause certain biological effects but has not established that these biological effects can adversely affect health. It is important to know the difference between biological and health effects, for example, moving from near sea level to somewhere in the mountains causes more blood cells to be made - a biological effect but not a health effect.
What about cancer?
In recent years attention has been focussed on the possibility that long term exposure to RF radiation may be responsible for serious health effects, such as cancer. Research continues to be undertaken on several fronts including the study of human populations and laboratory experiments on cells and tissues, and on rats and mice. While some studies have found effects associated with exposure to RF radiation, other studies have not shown such effects. To date, this research has not provided substantive evidence that exposure to RF radiation typical of the levels around mobile phones can cause cancer in humans.
Other risks
RF radiation from mobile phones can affect the operation of sensitive electronic equipment such as aircraft navigation systems and medical equipment. This may indirectly endanger the lives of people through the failure of these electronic systems and warnings to turn mobile phones off are given in aircraft and hospitals.
Conclusion
Although more research into the effects of RF radiation is being undertaken to answer unresolved questions, there is no convincing evidence that prolonged exposure to very low levels of RF radiation causes any adverse health effects.
Mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep
Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.
The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less time in them, interfering with the body's ability to repair damage suffered during the day.
The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers, most of whom – surveys suggest – use their phones late at night and who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of concentration and poor academic performance.
The study – carried out by scientists from the blue-chip Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Michigan, USA – is thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind.
Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now "more than sufficient evidence" to show that the radiation "affects deep sleep".
The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no radiation at all.
The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected."
The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting – at apparent variance with this published conclusion – that its "results were inconclusive" and that "the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance".
But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: "We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain."
He believes that the radiation may activate the brain's stress system, "making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing their ability to wind down and fall asleep".
About half of the people studied believed themselves to be "electrosensitive", reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.
This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has no measurable effects.
A series of them – most notably a recent highly publicised study at Essex University – have similarly found that people claiming to be electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.
Critics have attacked the studies' methodology, but the new findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were exposed.
It also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times – and those who used them more often more than five times – as likely to be "very tired".
Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: "There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep."
Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added: "Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity and behaviour problems."
David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to conduct "a formal public inquiry" into the effects of mobile phones.
No Clear Connection Between Mobile Phone Use And Brain Cancer
The study on the possible connection between mobile phone use and the risk of a malignant brain tumour, glioma, was carried out in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and England. The study showed that mobile phone users were not at an increased risk of developing a glioma.
Regular use of a mobile phone, duration of use, or the cumulative number of calls had no effect on the risk. The only indication of a potential effect was found among mobile phone users who had used a mobile phone for at least 10 years. They were found to have a slightly increased risk of a tumour on the side of the head on which they held the phone. Information on mobile phone use was collected using personal interviews. There is always a risk of error associated with recall, which affects the reliability of the results
Regular use of a mobile phone, duration of use, or the cumulative number of calls had no effect on the risk. The only indication of a potential effect was found among mobile phone users who had used a mobile phone for at least 10 years. They were found to have a slightly increased risk of a tumour on the side of the head on which they held the phone. Information on mobile phone use was collected using personal interviews. There is always a risk of error associated with recall, which affects the reliability of the results
Radiation From Mobile Phones Changes Protein Expression In Living People
Earlier studies have shown that mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency modulated electromagnetic fields; RF-EMF) alters protein expression and activity in human endothelial cell line. STUK’s new study is globally unique, because for the first time it has examined whether a local exposure of human skin to RF-EMF will cause changes in protein expression in living people.
In the study, a small area of forearm’s skin in 10 volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that skin biopsies were collected from exposed and non-exposed areas of skin and all extractable proteins were examined. The analysis of 580 proteins identified 8 proteins that were statistically significantly affected.
”Mobile phone radiation has some biological effect. Even if the changes are small, they still exist”, says Dariusz Leszczynski, Research Professor at STUK.
According to Leszczynski it is much too early to say will these changes induced by the mobile phone radiation have any effect on health.
”The aim of this project was not detecting any possible health effects, but to find out whether living human skin responds to mobile phone radiation and whether proteomics approach is useful in sorting out this issue”, he states.
A more extensive study with 50-100 volunteers is now planned at STUK. The new study is expected to begin in 2009.
Funding for the present study was provided by Tekes - Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation and STUK, and it was a part of national HERMO project (Health Risk Assessment of Mobile Communications) finished in September 2007.
List of some European mobile phone SAR levels
Manufacturer and Model Extended/retracted SAR level
1. Nokia 2110 0.44/0.25
2. Nokia 5110 0.37
3. Nokia 6110 0.29
4. Bosch World 718 0.28/0.33
5. Ericsson GA628 0.26
6. Hagenuk Global Handy 0.03
7. Motorola Star V3688 0.02
8. Motorola Star TAC 70 0.02/0.01
(Source: National Physical Laboratory UK.)
List of top 10 highest radiation mobile
Manufacturer and Model Extended/retracted SAR level
1. Nokia 2110 0.44/0.25
2. Nokia 5110 0.37
3. Nokia 6110 0.29
4. Bosch World 718 0.28/0.33
5. Ericsson GA628 0.26
6. Hagenuk Global Handy 0.03
7. Motorola Star V3688 0.02
8. Motorola Star TAC 70 0.02/0.01
(Source: National Physical Laboratory UK.)
List of top 10 highest radiation mobile
Meanwhile, The European Union is drawing up guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure of all types.
Mobile phones vary on radiation dosage: Following figures are for European mobile phones in SARS (watts of radiation from mobile phones per kg of brain), antenna extended / retracted. Safety is 10 watts/kg. Lowest radiation levels from phones with hidden antennae or ones extended away from head. Below that are SAR levels for US mobile phones. Note that there are different figures for SAR levels around for the same mobile phones, I suspect because some are official company data, and others independent lab measurements and that there may be other variables according to the exact conditions. For example the first table below shows big SAR phone radiation differences depending on the position of the aerial.
Short exposure to mobile phone radiation kills brain cells in rats
Short exposure to Mobile phone radiation - two hours - has been reported in 2003 to destroy cells in parts of the brain important for memory, movement and learning, and could possibly conceivably premature onset of illnesses such as Alzheimers - although we have no evidence of a similar effect in humans. Lund University Hospital Professor Leif Salford says mobile radiation allows harmful proteins and toxins through the brain barrier in rats. He also has found significant degree of damage to brain neurons in adolescent rats.
He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats which were not exposed to radiation. (published Feb 2003).
The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other centres replicate his work.
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation risk in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. See below for SAR data on mobile phone radiation levels. Once again, for every study with a positive finding of effect on cells, there is another that has found nothing.
As I say, from a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. I still use a mobile phone, as do our teenage children, and my home has a wireless network as well as hands-free local handsets for landlines. The only steps we have taken are to mount the wireless LAN connection a few feet from where anyone sits, and to encourage our younger children not to spend their entire lives chatting away on mobiles - there are other reasons for that too such as homework and of course cost.
Celphone.gif (12018 bytes)
As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation induced constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.
This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk, but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term radiation effects of using mobile phones? Could mobile phone exposure trigger cancer? Birth defects? What about the health risks not just from mobile phones but the transmitter masts?
This work on human subjects follows other ealier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects. But different studies have contradicted many of these findings. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side-effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated. Here are some of the more negative reports.
An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phones can affect intra-uterine development, confirmed recently in chicks (double birth defects, see below). The effects of mobile phone radiation in human embryo development are unknown.
He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats which were not exposed to radiation. (published Feb 2003).
The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other centres replicate his work.
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation risk in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. See below for SAR data on mobile phone radiation levels. Once again, for every study with a positive finding of effect on cells, there is another that has found nothing.
As I say, from a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. I still use a mobile phone, as do our teenage children, and my home has a wireless network as well as hands-free local handsets for landlines. The only steps we have taken are to mount the wireless LAN connection a few feet from where anyone sits, and to encourage our younger children not to spend their entire lives chatting away on mobiles - there are other reasons for that too such as homework and of course cost.
Celphone.gif (12018 bytes)
As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation induced constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.
This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk, but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term radiation effects of using mobile phones? Could mobile phone exposure trigger cancer? Birth defects? What about the health risks not just from mobile phones but the transmitter masts?
This work on human subjects follows other ealier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects. But different studies have contradicted many of these findings. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side-effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated. Here are some of the more negative reports.
An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phones can affect intra-uterine development, confirmed recently in chicks (double birth defects, see below). The effects of mobile phone radiation in human embryo development are unknown.
Radiation Scare from Mobile Phones
New reports continue to be published several times a year, suggesting that there might be health risks from mobile phones electromagnetic radiation. Yet other studies show little or no health impact.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
Mobile Phone Radiation to Unleash Epidemic of Brain Tumors
NaturalNews) A new review of more than 100 studies on the safety of mobile phones has concluded that cellular devices are poised to cause an epidemic of brain tumors that will kill more people than smoking or asbestos.
The review was conducted by neurosurgeon Vini Khurana, who has received more than 14 awards in the past 16 years, who made headlines worldwide with his warnings. He called upon the industry to immediately work to reduce people's exposure to the radiation from mobile phones.
According to Khurana, research demonstrates that long-term use of mobile handsets, more than 10 years, can double the risk of contracting brain cancer. While a number of studies have concluded that there is no such risk, Khurana said that most of those studies only examined short-term use. But because a brain tumor can take 10 years to develop, studies without a long follow-up period are largely meaningless.
"There is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors," Khurana said, a link that will be "definitively proven" within 10 years.
Khurana urged people to minimize their use of mobile phones, particularly handsets. He also urged the industry to act immediately to reduce exposure to radiation from the devices.
While mobile phones may save lives in certain emergency situations, Khurana said, brain cancer is "a life-ending diagnosis."
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," Khurana said. While one billion people worldwide smoke tobacco, three times as many now use mobile phones.
Smoking is responsible for five million deaths each year.
While the United Kingdom's Independent newspaper described Khurana's study as "the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks" of mobile phones, his warning is not the first. A Swedish study in 2006 concluded that people who used mobile phones for an hour or more each day had a 240 percent higher brain tumor risk than non-users. Tumors were significantly more likely to develop on the side of the head where the phone was most often used.
Inspired in part by such studies, France has warned against mobile phone use (especially in children), Germany urges people to minimize their use of mobile handsets, and the European Environment Agency has called for minimizing exposure to cellular radiation.
The mechanisms by which mobile phones increase cancer risk are not well understood, but several possibilities are suspected. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is known to directly heat up the head and brain, and can also cause thermoelectric effects on cells and DNA. According to Khurana, even bluetooth devices and unshielded headsets merely turn the head into an antenna that bombards itself with radiation. Children, with thinner skulls than adults, are particularly at risk.
"EMR rays in general cause irritation, concentration lapses and in many cases even proliferation of cells which cause cancer," said Dr Rajeev Ranjan, a New Delhi neurologist. Radiation can also interfere with the functioning of medical devices like pacemakers.
EMR also "affect[s] the DNA and cause[s] problems in cell recovery and cell growth," said New Delhi neurologist Anshu Rohatgi.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mobile phone use radiation scare
Now there is increasing evidence of definite effects of mobile phone radiation on human health. In June 1998, the Lancet reported that radiation from mobile phones causes an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobile phones to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from a constrictive effect on blood vessels. This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term effects of using mobile phones? Could such radiation exposure trigger cancer?
This work on human subjects follows other studies in animals, suggesting that radiation from mobile phones may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety and memory loss. An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phone use can affect intra-uterine development. Worms exposed to mobile phone radiation grow larger, produce more eggs and release more stress hormone.
Celphone.gif (12018 bytes)The effects of mobile phone radiation in humans are unknown. In Britain, a 27 year old woman with a brain tumour is taking a mobile phone manufacturer to court who she blames for her tumour. A biologist, Roger Coghill, has also been given permission to bring a case against a provider of mobile phone equipment for failing to warn people of radiation hazards. A wide variety of electrical devices contribute to electrosmog, ranging from computers, to phones, TV sets, radar transmitters and transformers. However, mobile phone radiation is certainly intense, as evidenced by the effects on aircraft navigation systems, or more obviously on a nearby conventional telephone or a music system.
Meanwhile, The European Union is drawing up guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure of all types.
Meanwhile, The European Union is drawing up guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure of all types.
Mobile phones vary on radiation dosage: Following figures are for European mobile phones in SARS (watts of radiation from mobile phones per kg of brain), antenna extended / retracted. Safety is 10 watts/kg. Lowest radiation levels from phones with hidden antennae or ones extended away from head. Below that are SAR levels for US mobile phones. Note that there are different figures for SAR levels around for the same mobile phones, I suspect because some are official company data, and others independent lab measurements and that there may be other variables according to the exact conditions. For example the first table below shows big SAR phone radiation differences depending on the position of the aerial.
Short exposure to mobile phone radiation kills brain cells in rats
New reports continue to be published several times a year, suggesting that there might be health risks from mobile phones electromagnetic radiation. Yet other studies show little or no health impact.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
Radiation absorption
Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset, can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts. Other digital mobile technologies, such as CDMA2000 and D-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt. The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard it is following and by the regulatory agencies in each country. In most systems the cellphone and the base station check reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate for different situations such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles. The rate at which radiation is absorbed by the human body is measured by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the USA, the FCC has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used comparisons between different measurements can not be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves. SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.
Thermal effects
One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight. The brain's blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow. However, the cornea of the eye does not have this temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 2-3 hours' duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41°C.[verification needed][15] Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones.
Non-thermal effects
The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate. [16]
Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example[17], has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.
Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example[17], has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.
Blood-brain barrier effects
Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Perrson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of albumin into the brain via a permeated blood-brain barrier.[18][19] Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cell [20] or animal studies.[21] The main concern of these works is, that albumin is toxic to neuron cells, and causes them permanent damage, as some of these study reports state.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling sensations in the skin of the head and extremities, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot separate the symptoms from nocebo effects.
Genotoxic effects
Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[23] Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.[24] Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.[25]
In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Lai and Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.[26] Later, in December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[27] Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences
In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Lai and Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.[26] Later, in December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[27] Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences
Mobile phones and cancer
In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[29] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) consider this report as inconclusive.[30]
In order to investigate the risk of cancer for the mobile phone user, a cooperative project between 13 countries has been launched called INTERPHONE. The idea is that cancers need time to develop so only studies over 10 years are of interest.[31]
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
* A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years and found no evidence to support a link.[29]
* A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[32]
* A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[33]
* A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."[34]
* A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."[35]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
* A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[36]
* The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radiofrequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR. [37]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that[38]:
* Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
* Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
* Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
* One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[39]
Sister project Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer risk
* A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented an "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".[40] This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’
In order to investigate the risk of cancer for the mobile phone user, a cooperative project between 13 countries has been launched called INTERPHONE. The idea is that cancers need time to develop so only studies over 10 years are of interest.[31]
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
* A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years and found no evidence to support a link.[29]
* A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[32]
* A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[33]
* A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."[34]
* A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."[35]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
* A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[36]
* The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radiofrequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR. [37]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that[38]:
* Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
* Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
* Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
* One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[39]
Sister project Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer risk
* A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented an "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".[40] This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’
Sleep and EEG effects
Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. Whilst a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure[42], most other papers have found significant effects on sleep[43][44][45][46][47][48]. Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants' broken sleep) actually improved.
Whilst some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent[49][50], a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure[51][52][53][54]. German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%)
Whilst some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent[49][50], a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure[51][52][53][54]. German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%)
Health hazards of base stations
Another area of worry about effects on the population's health have been the radiation emitted by base stations (the antennas on the surface which communicate with the phones). This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand due to the attenuation of power with the square of distance, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna. Base station emissions must comply with ICNIRP guidelines of a maximum power density of 4.5 W/m² (450 microwatts/cm2) for 900 MHz and 9 W/m² (900 microwatts/cm2) for 1800 MHz.[56] These guidelines are set for heating, which is the only understood mechanism of electromagnetic fields on biological tissue. The ICNIRP guidelines are distrusted by some.[57]
Several surveys have found increases of symptoms depending upon proximity to electromagnetic sources such as mobile phone base stations. A 2002 survey study by Santini et al. in France found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who reported that they were living within 300 metres (984 ft) of GSM cell towers in rural areas, or within 100 m (328 ft) of base stations in urban areas. Fatigue, headache, sleep disruption and loss of memory were among the symptoms reported.[58] Similar results have been obtained with GSM cell towers in Spain,[59] Egypt,[60] Poland[61] and Austria.[62] There are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[63]
However, a study conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[64] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[65] The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,[66] although these criticisms were answered by the authors.
As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including 3G towers which work with larger bandwidths.[citation needed] Many measurements and experiments have shown that transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern 2G antennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further.[citation needed] The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous[citation needed].
Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.[67] This recommendation was modified in 2003[68] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.
Several surveys have found increases of symptoms depending upon proximity to electromagnetic sources such as mobile phone base stations. A 2002 survey study by Santini et al. in France found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who reported that they were living within 300 metres (984 ft) of GSM cell towers in rural areas, or within 100 m (328 ft) of base stations in urban areas. Fatigue, headache, sleep disruption and loss of memory were among the symptoms reported.[58] Similar results have been obtained with GSM cell towers in Spain,[59] Egypt,[60] Poland[61] and Austria.[62] There are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[63]
However, a study conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[64] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[65] The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,[66] although these criticisms were answered by the authors.
As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including 3G towers which work with larger bandwidths.[citation needed] Many measurements and experiments have shown that transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern 2G antennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further.[citation needed] The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous[citation needed].
Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.[67] This recommendation was modified in 2003[68] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.
Occupational health hazards
Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etc. may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, because that would affect the network, so people work near "live" antennas.
A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.
A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.
Safety standards and licensing
In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.[71]
Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.
Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.
The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".
Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.
Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.
The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".
Evolution of safety standards
The following is a brief summary of the wireless safety standards, which have become stricter over time.
* 1966: The ANSI C95.1 standard adopted the standard of 10 mW/cm2 (10,000 μW/cm2) based on thermal effects.
* 1982: The IEEE recommended further lowering this limit to 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for certain frequencies in 1982, which became a standard ten years later in 1992 (see below).
* 1986: The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended the exposure limit of 580 μW/cm2.
* 1992: The ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard based on thermal effects used the 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) safety limit. The United States Environmental Protection Agency called this revised standard "seriously flawed", partly for failing to consider non-thermal effects, and called for the FCC to adopt the 1986 NCRP standard which was five times stricter.
* 1996: The FCC updated to the standard of 580 μW/cm2 over any 30-minute period for the 869 MHz, while still using 1mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for PCS frequencies (1850-1990 MHz).[72]
* 1998: The ICNIRP standard uses the limit of 450 μW/cm2 at 900 MHz, and 950 μW/cm2 at 1900 MHz. The limit is frequency dependent.
[edit] Adequacy of
* 1966: The ANSI C95.1 standard adopted the standard of 10 mW/cm2 (10,000 μW/cm2) based on thermal effects.
* 1982: The IEEE recommended further lowering this limit to 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for certain frequencies in 1982, which became a standard ten years later in 1992 (see below).
* 1986: The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended the exposure limit of 580 μW/cm2.
* 1992: The ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard based on thermal effects used the 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) safety limit. The United States Environmental Protection Agency called this revised standard "seriously flawed", partly for failing to consider non-thermal effects, and called for the FCC to adopt the 1986 NCRP standard which was five times stricter.
* 1996: The FCC updated to the standard of 580 μW/cm2 over any 30-minute period for the 869 MHz, while still using 1mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for PCS frequencies (1850-1990 MHz).[72]
* 1998: The ICNIRP standard uses the limit of 450 μW/cm2 at 900 MHz, and 950 μW/cm2 at 1900 MHz. The limit is frequency dependent.
[edit] Adequacy of
Adequacy of current standards
The controversial question is whether the current safety standards are adequate enough to protect the public's long-term health. A few nations have set safety limits orders lower than the ICNIRP limit. In particular, the Salzburg Resolution for Austria recommends safety limits many times lower (0.6 V/m = 0.1 microWatts/cm2 for pulsed radiation.[73]
In september 2008 the European Parliament decided in a Resolution no 04/09/2008 – EP: INI/2007/2252, that its Recommendation 1999/519/EC, based on ICNIRP 1998 standard is obsolete and should be amended.
In september 2008 the European Parliament decided in a Resolution no 04/09/2008 – EP: INI/2007/2252, that its Recommendation 1999/519/EC, based on ICNIRP 1998 standard is obsolete and should be amended.
Lawsuits
In the USA, a small number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such as Motorola[75], NEC, Siemens and Nokia, on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death. In US federal court, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In one case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer, and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff’s cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs; accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts; and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.
Precautionary principle
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[77] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable). Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern[78]. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with ALARA levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.
[edit] Use in hospitals
[edit] Use in hospitals
Use in hospitals
Use of mobile phones is sometimes discouraged inside hospitals.
Their ring tones, as well as the resulting conversation, may disturb patients. The conversations may also interfere with important discussions between health care workers and patients.[79]
Ring tones and alarms could also be confused with sounds from medical equipment. Their electromagnetic signals could also interfere with medical devices, even in stand-by mode. [79] However, this potential interference may only be significant in intensive care and NICU.
Their ring tones, as well as the resulting conversation, may disturb patients. The conversations may also interfere with important discussions between health care workers and patients.[79]
Ring tones and alarms could also be confused with sounds from medical equipment. Their electromagnetic signals could also interfere with medical devices, even in stand-by mode. [79] However, this potential interference may only be significant in intensive care and NICU.
Mobile phone radiation and health
Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world (as of August 2005[update], there were more than 2 billion users worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range, and some[1] believe this may be harmful to human health. These concerns have induced a large body of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals and in humans). Concerns about effects on health have also been raised regarding other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks.
The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that health effects (e.g. headaches) are very unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,[2][3] and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in October 2009.[4]
However, some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[5] France,[6] Germany,[7] and Sweden[8] recommended to their citizens measures to minimize exposure. Examples of the recommendations are:
* Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
* Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
* Do not telephone in a car without an external antenna.
The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[9] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[10] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[11] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)