Enter the world of hi-tech mobile phones


Mobile phones and health

Mobile phone radiation and health concernsthat robust responses have been observed. The
have been raised since the 1990s, especiallyphysiological significance or biological
following the enormous increase in the use ofrelevance of some the reported changes were
wireless mobile telephony throughout thequestioned by the authors themselves (e.g.,
world (as of August 2005, there were more"Taken together, the results of the REFLEX
than 2 billion users worldwide). This isproject were exclusively obtained in in vitro
because mobile phones use electromagneticstudies and are, therefore, not suitable for
waves in the microwave range. These concernsthe conclusion that RF-EMF exposure below the
have induced a large body of research (bothpresently valid safety limits causes a risk
epidemiological and experimental, into the health of people"). A comment by
non-human animals as well as in humans).Boulder (2005) on these results questions
Concerns about effects on health have also"whether the positive findings were more
been raised regarding other digital wirelesscommon than expected from random chance
systems, such as data communication networks.(false positive rates from cellular
genotoxicity  tests  can be as high as 20%)."
The results, so far, have been controversial:
the majority of epidemiological studies haveThe communications protocols used by mobile
not found any clear indication of short andphones often result in low-frequency pulsing
medium term health hazards. On the other handof the carrier signal. These low frequencies
there is extensive literature on so-calledare similar to those that exist in the
non-thermal effects of weak microwaveelectrical oscillations of the human body,
radiation on biological tissue in animalspecifically the alpha and delta brain waves.
models or in-vitro, including affecting theNon-linear interactions could theoretically
growth of certain tumors, cell death,result when resonances are created when the
increased permeability of the blood-brainbrain is subjected to mobile phone radiation,
barrier, DNA damage and others, which suggestin a manner similar to that observed when
the possibility of adverse health effects inlight strobing induces photosensitive
humans.epilepsy in susceptible individuals. No
experimental results have indicated this
Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobiletheoretical possibility, however. These and
telephone handset are absorbed by the humanother non-thermal effects are summarized in
head; the radio waves emitted by a GSM(Hyland,  2000).
handset, for example, can have a power of up
to 2 watts, and an analog phone in the USAOther researchers have argued that the
(probably very few in use today) can have 3.6so-called "non-thermal effects" could be
watts, as in the old large mobile phone unitsreinterpreted as a normal cellular response
installed in cars. Other digital mobileto an increase in temperature. The noted
technologies, such as CDMA and TDMA, haveGerman biophysicist Roland Glaser, for
today lower rates, under 1 watt. The averageexample [6] has argued that there are several
radiation rate of cellphones in somethermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that
countries is regulated and it is mandatory tothey activate a cascade of second and third
inform the consumers about it (usuallymessenger systems, gene expression mechanisms
printed in the battery compartment). In someand production of heat shock proteins in
systems the cellphone and the base stationorder to defend the cell against metabolic
check reception quality and signal strengthcell stress cause by heat. The increases in
and the power level is increased or decreasedtemperature that cause these changes are too
automatically, within the above limits, suchsmall to be detected by studies such as
as  inside  buildings  or  vehicles,  etc.REFLEX, which base their whole argument on
the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium
The rate at which radiation is absorbed byin  their  cell  cultures.
the human body is measured by the Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR), and its maximum levelsSeveral reports by national and international
for modern handsets have been set byexperts have been published in the last 3
governmental regulating agencies in manyyears, examining the scientific evidence
countries. In the USA, the FCC has set a SARprovided so far for possible detrimental
limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume ofeffects of the use mobile handsets. For
1 gram of tissue, for most parts of the body.example:
(SAR values are heavily dependent on the size
of the averaging volume. Without informationAGNIR REPORT 2003: "Overall the evidence for
about the averaging volume used comparisonsRF field effects on cognitive functions in
between different measurements can not behumans is inconsistent and inconclusive (...)
made.)The biological evidence suggests that RF
fields do not cause mutation or initiate or
Thermal  effectspromote tumor formation and that the
epidemiological evidence overall do no
One well-understood effect of microwavesuggest causal associations between exposure
radiation is dielectric heating, in which anyto RF fields in particular from mobile phone
dielectric material (such as living tissue)users and the risk of cancer. Exposure levels
is heated by rotations of polar moleculesfor those living near to mobile phone base
induced by the electromagnetic field. In thestations are extremely low and the evidence
case of a person using a cell phone, most ofsuggests that they are unlikely to pose a
the heating effect may occur in the headrisk  to  health."
surface, causing its temperature to increase
by a fraction of a degree. The level ofSWEDISH RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY REPORT
temperature increase is an order of magnitude2002 [8]: "No significant associations have
less than that obtained during the exposurebeen seen between all brain tumors combined
of the head to direct sunlight. The brain'sand phone use, with relative risks ranging
blood circulation easily disposes of excessfrom 0,9 to 1,3 (...) Subgroup analyses
heat by instantaneously increasing localshowed no consistent pattern of increased
blood flow. However, the cornea of the eyerisk. It was considered that it was not
does not have this temperature regulationbiologically plausible that exposure to RF
mechanism. Premature cataracts are known asfields could increase the risk of cancer. The
an occupational disease of engineers who workstudies conducted so far have ruled out with
on high power radio transmitters at similara reasonable certainty that mobile phones
frequencies. Due to the low power of mobilecause  cancer."
phones, cataracts have not been reported to
occur  in  users  of  these.Electromagnetic  hypersensitivity  syndrome
It has been claimed that some parts of theMany users of mobile handsets have reported
human head are more sensitive to damage duefeeling several unspecific symptoms during
to increases in temperature, particularly inand after its use, such as burning and
anatomical structures with poor vasculature,tingling sensations in the skin of the head
such as nerve fibers. More recent resultsand extremities, fatigue, sleep disturbances,
from a Swedish scientific team at thedizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction
Karolinska Institute (Lonn, Ahlbom, Hall andtimes and memory retentiveness, headaches,
Feychting) have suggested that continuous usemalaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations) and
of a mobile phone for a decade or longer candisturbances of the digestive system. Some
lead to a small increase in the probabilityresearchers, implying a causal relationship,
of getting acoustic neuroma, a type of brainhave named this syndrome as a new diagnostic
tumor. The increase was not noted in thoseentity, EHS or ES (electrosensitivity). The
who used phones for less than 10 years. TheWorld Health Organization prefers to name it
study has been criticized for possible"idiopathic environmental intolerance", in
problems in data analysis such as recallorder to avoid the implication of causation.
bias. However, another study conducted by theThis entity is quite controversial, because
Swedish National Institute for Working Lifealbeit identified in unmistaken terms by the
supported an increased risk of "malignantpatients who affirm to suffer from it, in
tumors on the side of the head the phone issome cases in such a radical way that they
used." [2] Such long term heavy use involvedavoid using cellphones, it has not been
phones of older higher power analog designsrecognized as a separate clinical entity by
that were first introduced to Sweden in 1984,most  medical  researchers.
earlier  than  many  other  countries.
Two recent literature reviews, however, one
Non-thermal  effectsreviewing 13 published papers in 2003 and
2004, and another reviewing 31 papers
In December 2004 a pan-European study namedpublished before 2004, have concluded that
REFLEX, involving 12 collaboratingthere is no scientific evidence for a causal
laboratories in several countries showed somerelationship between the reported clusters of
compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells insymptoms and exposure to microwave radiation
in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3used in cellphones, well below the safety
to 2 watts/kg. This overlaps with the levelstandards. A workshop conducted by the WHO in
of radiation typically emitted by digitalPrague in 2004 also reached the same
cell phones of around 0.2 to 1 watt/kg. Thereconclusions, viz., that 1) reported symptoms
were indications, but not rigorous evidenceare very unspecific and could have other
of other cell changes, including damage tocauses; 2) there is no causal association
chromosomes, alterations in the activity ofdemonstrated between exposure and symptoms,
certain genes and a boosted rate of cell3) that patients who display those symptoms
division. The results of this study runshould be medically examined for alternative
contrary to many similar studies that wereexplanations and causes, including
conducted before and showed no increase inpsychiatric/psychological ones (since they
DNA  damage.  .are typical manifestations of stress and
other somatization/psychosomatic causes), and
According to a recent (2004) review publishedthat the environment where they work or live
by the UK National Radiation Protection Boardshould be assessed in order to discover other
(Z J Sienkiewicz and C I Kowalczuk ), "thefactors at work that could explain the
effects reported by the REFLEX project do notsymptoms; and 4) lowering the safety limits
appear to have been seen consistently (...)for handset radiation (SAR levels) will not
Overall these inconsistencies do not suggestaffect the situation.



1 A B C D E F G 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145