New Delhi, June 20 (ANI/Business Wire India): The studies and survey conducted by Australian Health Research Institute indicates that due to billions of times more in volume electromagnetic radiation emitted by billions of mobile phones, internet, intranet and wireless communication data transmission will make almost one-third of world population (about two billions) patient of ear, eye and brain cancer beside other major body disorders like heart ailments, impotency, migraine, epilepsy.
According to the reports the tissues of children are tender and are likely to be more effected by use of any wireless gadget and devices and they should not be encouraged to use mobile phone.
The fatal and volumetric effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted mainly by mobile phones, mobile phone antenna, tower, mast, transmission tower, microwave oven, wireless devices, system and equipment.
These dangerous effects have been certified and confirmed repeatedly by many leading medical and scientific research institutions of the world including Ministries of health of various governments, W.H.O. and now have been admitted and confirmed by Govt. of India in their recent press releases.
The attached image shows and proves about the serious ill effects of E.M. radiation released by Radiation Nuclear and Safety Authority of FINLAND as to how E.M. radiation emitted by mobile phones damages the various body cells and causes incurable and fatal diseases. (ANI)
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Are Mobile Phones Linked To Eye Cancer?
A group of researchers in Germany found that people who frequently use mobile phones are three times more likely to develop uveal melanoma- a cancer which grows in the iris and base of the retina of the eye. The scientists examined 118 patients already suffering from uveal melanoma, and investigated their mobile phone use history. They compared the results against a control group of 475 people.
Analysis of the results, which were published in January’s Epidemiology journal, found that those with cancer had a much higher rate of mobile phone use.
However Dr Andreas Stang, who led the team of researchers, does caution that the study needs to be confirmed—a point backed by Epidemiology. “Given the small size of their study, the relatively crude exposure assessment, the absence of attention to UVR exposure or other possible confounding variables, and limited support in the literature, a cautious interpretation of their results is indicated,” read an editorial accompanying the research.
Results from other studies that investigate mobile phones and cancer have been conflicting.
How could mobile phones cause melanoma in the eye? High levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation can create enough heat to cause biological damage. But mobile phones emit low levels of RF energy. Some scientists theorize that the eye may be vulnerable to RF radiation even at low levels because the eye’s limited blood supply prevents it from releasing heat easily.
Also, the radiation may not necessarily cause cancer, but may make people who are predisposed to cancer more susceptible.
So don’t throw away your favourite Nokia just yet!!!
Analysis of the results, which were published in January’s Epidemiology journal, found that those with cancer had a much higher rate of mobile phone use.
However Dr Andreas Stang, who led the team of researchers, does caution that the study needs to be confirmed—a point backed by Epidemiology. “Given the small size of their study, the relatively crude exposure assessment, the absence of attention to UVR exposure or other possible confounding variables, and limited support in the literature, a cautious interpretation of their results is indicated,” read an editorial accompanying the research.
Results from other studies that investigate mobile phones and cancer have been conflicting.
How could mobile phones cause melanoma in the eye? High levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation can create enough heat to cause biological damage. But mobile phones emit low levels of RF energy. Some scientists theorize that the eye may be vulnerable to RF radiation even at low levels because the eye’s limited blood supply prevents it from releasing heat easily.
Also, the radiation may not necessarily cause cancer, but may make people who are predisposed to cancer more susceptible.
So don’t throw away your favourite Nokia just yet!!!
Do mobile phones cause cancer?
Is it true that using a mobile phone hands-free ear piece will cause cancer?
There is currently no firm evidence that using a mobile phone will increase your risk of developing a brain tumour or any other type of cancer. There is information on this page about
* Mobile phones and radio waves
* Research
* Government advice and recommendations
Mobile phones and radio waves
Mobile phones are low powered radio devices that transmit and receive microwave radiation. According to the information produced by the Health Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division, "radio waves do not have sufficient energy to damage genetic material (DNA) in cells, and cannot therefore cause cancer".
The amount of radio wave energy that your body absorbs from a mobile phone can be measured. This is called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and this information should now be available on all mobile phones sold in the UK. The SAR of mobile phones in the UK has been within the international exposure guidelines for some years now.
Research
Several research studies carried out in Europe and America have looked at large numbers of people using mobile phones. Most have found no link between brain tumours and mobile phones. A large UK study reported in January 2006 that they could find no link between mobile phone use and glioma. The study included information on over 2,500 people. They found no link between the amount of mobile phone use, length of time since first use, lifetime years of use or number of calls made. The study did not include any information on children using mobile phones. Over 2,500 people took part in this study. Only about 6 or 7 out of every 100 of them had used a mobile for more than 10 years.
A large Danish study has followed over 400,000 people - some of them for 21 years. In December 2006, these researchers published a paper that looked particularly at those who had been using a mobile phone for more than 10 years. They found no increased risk of brain tumour. A 2007 study found that high use of mobile phones may very slightly increase the risk of developing tumours of the salivary glands, but this needs to be confirmed by other research.
One thing to remember is that most of the research carried out has looked at older 'analogue' phones. Most of the phones available in the UK now (especially the newer phones) are digital. These give out less radio wave radiation than analogue phones, and so any potential risk is reduced.
There is very limited research about using a mobile phone with a hands-free set. Some research says holding the phone to your ear will expose you to less radiation than using a headset. Other research says the opposite. But, which ever is true, there is no proof that this low level radiation increases the risk of a brain tumour. There is more research underway in the UK to look into this further.
Government advice and recommendations
The Department of Health (DoH) has published a leaflet about using mobile phones called "Mobile phones and Health" which states that the effectiveness of hands-free sets in lowering radiation is still uncertain. The Government have also recommended that further research into the effectiveness of hands-free sets should take place. Some results from this research should be published soon.
The Government agrees that shielding devices and hands-free kits should be independently tested and that there should be clear information about the effectiveness of such devices in lowering radiation exposure. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) have already commissioned independent SAR measurement of hands free kits and the results will be published soon. The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme Management Committee are carrying out some of this research.
Your exposure to radio waves depends on how long you are using your mobile phone. Because no one can be be absolutely sure about the possible risks, the Government recommends that mobile phones are only used for short calls.
The Government's advisory group's advice is that you use mobile phones for as short a time as possible and preferably with a hands free kit. The chairman of the Government's advisory group, Sir William Stewart, says that children should only use mobile phones in an emergency. There is no evidence that mobile phones are damaging to children either. But if mobile phone use does turn out to have health risks, children would be more at risk because
* They are young
* Their nervous systems are still developing
* Their skulls are thinner
Sir William Stewart believes that children shouldn't use mobiles regularly if they are under 16. If you are concerned, the Health Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division have some useful information on mobile phones that you may find helpful.
Remember - the most dangerous thing about mobile phones is that people use them when they are driving! You have 4 times the risk of having an accident if you are talking on the phone when driving - and hands free kits don't seem to be any safer as far as driving accidents are concerned.
There is currently no firm evidence that using a mobile phone will increase your risk of developing a brain tumour or any other type of cancer. There is information on this page about
* Mobile phones and radio waves
* Research
* Government advice and recommendations
Mobile phones and radio waves
Mobile phones are low powered radio devices that transmit and receive microwave radiation. According to the information produced by the Health Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division, "radio waves do not have sufficient energy to damage genetic material (DNA) in cells, and cannot therefore cause cancer".
The amount of radio wave energy that your body absorbs from a mobile phone can be measured. This is called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and this information should now be available on all mobile phones sold in the UK. The SAR of mobile phones in the UK has been within the international exposure guidelines for some years now.
Research
Several research studies carried out in Europe and America have looked at large numbers of people using mobile phones. Most have found no link between brain tumours and mobile phones. A large UK study reported in January 2006 that they could find no link between mobile phone use and glioma. The study included information on over 2,500 people. They found no link between the amount of mobile phone use, length of time since first use, lifetime years of use or number of calls made. The study did not include any information on children using mobile phones. Over 2,500 people took part in this study. Only about 6 or 7 out of every 100 of them had used a mobile for more than 10 years.
A large Danish study has followed over 400,000 people - some of them for 21 years. In December 2006, these researchers published a paper that looked particularly at those who had been using a mobile phone for more than 10 years. They found no increased risk of brain tumour. A 2007 study found that high use of mobile phones may very slightly increase the risk of developing tumours of the salivary glands, but this needs to be confirmed by other research.
One thing to remember is that most of the research carried out has looked at older 'analogue' phones. Most of the phones available in the UK now (especially the newer phones) are digital. These give out less radio wave radiation than analogue phones, and so any potential risk is reduced.
There is very limited research about using a mobile phone with a hands-free set. Some research says holding the phone to your ear will expose you to less radiation than using a headset. Other research says the opposite. But, which ever is true, there is no proof that this low level radiation increases the risk of a brain tumour. There is more research underway in the UK to look into this further.
Government advice and recommendations
The Department of Health (DoH) has published a leaflet about using mobile phones called "Mobile phones and Health" which states that the effectiveness of hands-free sets in lowering radiation is still uncertain. The Government have also recommended that further research into the effectiveness of hands-free sets should take place. Some results from this research should be published soon.
The Government agrees that shielding devices and hands-free kits should be independently tested and that there should be clear information about the effectiveness of such devices in lowering radiation exposure. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) have already commissioned independent SAR measurement of hands free kits and the results will be published soon. The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme Management Committee are carrying out some of this research.
Your exposure to radio waves depends on how long you are using your mobile phone. Because no one can be be absolutely sure about the possible risks, the Government recommends that mobile phones are only used for short calls.
The Government's advisory group's advice is that you use mobile phones for as short a time as possible and preferably with a hands free kit. The chairman of the Government's advisory group, Sir William Stewart, says that children should only use mobile phones in an emergency. There is no evidence that mobile phones are damaging to children either. But if mobile phone use does turn out to have health risks, children would be more at risk because
* They are young
* Their nervous systems are still developing
* Their skulls are thinner
Sir William Stewart believes that children shouldn't use mobiles regularly if they are under 16. If you are concerned, the Health Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division have some useful information on mobile phones that you may find helpful.
Remember - the most dangerous thing about mobile phones is that people use them when they are driving! You have 4 times the risk of having an accident if you are talking on the phone when driving - and hands free kits don't seem to be any safer as far as driving accidents are concerned.
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
GUIDELINES FOR THE EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER
The following cancer screening guidelines are recommended for those people at average risk for cancer (unless otherwise specified) and without any specific symptoms.
People who are at increased risk for certain cancers may need to follow a different screening schedule, such as starting at an earlier age or being screened more often. Those with symptoms that could be related to cancer should see their doctor right away.
Cancer-related checkup
For people aged 20 or older having periodic health exams, a cancer-related checkup should include health counseling, and depending on a person's age and gender, might include exams for cancers of the thyroid, oral cavity, skin, lymph nodes, testes, and ovaries, as well as for some non-malignant (non-cancerous) diseases.
Special tests for certain cancer sites are recommended as outlined below.
Breast cancer
• Yearly mammograms are recommended starting at age 40 and continuing for as long as a woman is in good health.
• Clinical breast exam (CBE) should be part of a periodic health exam, about every 3 years for women in their 20s and 30s and every year for women 40 and over.
• Women should know how their breasts normally feel and report any breast change promptly to their health care providers. Breast self-exam (BSE) is an option for women starting in their 20s.
• Women at high risk (greater than 20% lifetime risk) should get an MRI and a mammogram every year. Women at moderately increased risk (15% to 20% lifetime risk) should talk with their doctors about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to their yearly mammogram. Yearly MRI screening is not recommended for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is less than 15%.
Colon and rectal cancer
Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below. The tests that are designed to find both early cancer and polyps are preferred if these tests are available to you and you are willing to have one of these more invasive tests. Talk to your doctor about which test is best for you.
Tests that find polyps and cancer
• flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years*
• colonoscopy every 10 years
• double contrast barium enema every 5 years*
• CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years*
Tests that mainly find cancer
• fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year*,**
• fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year*,**
• stool DNA test (sDNA), interval uncertain*
*Colonoscopy should be done if test results are positive.
**For FOBT or FIT used as a screening test, the take-home multiple sample method should be used. A FOBT or FIT done during a digital rectal exam in the doctor's office is not adequate for screening.
People should talk to their doctor about starting colorectal cancer screening earlier and/or being screened more often if they have any of the following colorectal cancer risk factors:
• a personal history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
• a personal history of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (Crohns disease or ulcerative colitis)
• a strong family history of colorectal cancer or polyps (cancer or polyps in a first-degree relative [parent, sibling, or child] younger than 60 or in 2 or more first-degree relatives of any age)
• a known family history of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC)
Cervical cancer
• All women should begin cervical cancer screening about 3 years after they begin having vaginal intercourse, but no later than when they are 21 years old. Screening should be done every year with the regular Pap test or every 2 years using the newer liquid-based Pap test.
• Beginning at age 30, women who have had 3 normal Pap test results in a row may get screened every 2 to 3 years. Another reasonable option for women over 30 is to get screened every 3 years (but not more frequently) with either the conventional or liquid-based Pap test, plus the HPV DNA test. Women who have certain risk factors such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure before birth, HIV infection, or a weakened immune system due to organ transplant, chemotherapy, or chronic steroid use should continue to be screened annually.
• Women 70 years of age or older who have had 3 or more normal Pap tests in a row and no abnormal Pap test results in the last 10 years may choose to stop having cervical cancer screening. Women with a history of cervical cancer, DES exposure before birth, HIV infection or a weakened immune system should continue to have screening as long as they are in good health.
• Women who have had a total hysterectomy (removal of the uterus and cervix) may also choose to stop having cervical cancer screening, unless the surgery was done as a treatment for cervical cancer or pre-cancer. Women who have had a hysterectomy without removal of the cervix should continue to follow the guidelines above.
Endometrial (uterine) cancer
The American Cancer Society recommends that at the time of menopause, all women should be informed about the risks and symptoms of endometrial cancer, and strongly encouraged to report any unexpected bleeding or spotting to their doctors. For women with or at high risk for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), annual screening should be offered for endometrial cancer with endometrial biopsy beginning at age 35.
Prostate cancer
Both the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and digital rectal examination (DRE) should be offered annually, beginning at age 50, to men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy. Men at high risk (African-American men and men with a strong family of one or more first-degree relatives [father, brothers] diagnosed before age 65) should begin testing at age 45. Men at even higher risk, due to multiple first-degree relatives affected at an early age, could begin testing at age 40. Depending on the results of this initial test, no further testing might be needed until age 45.
Information should be provided to all men about what is known and what is uncertain about the benefits, limitations, and harms of early detection and treatment of prostate cancer so that they can make an informed decision about testing.
Men who ask their doctor to make the decision on their behalf should be tested. Discouraging testing is not appropriate. Also, not offering testing is not appropriate.
The following cancer screening guidelines are recommended for those people at average risk for cancer (unless otherwise specified) and without any specific symptoms.
People who are at increased risk for certain cancers may need to follow a different screening schedule, such as starting at an earlier age or being screened more often. Those with symptoms that could be related to cancer should see their doctor right away.
Cancer-related checkup
For people aged 20 or older having periodic health exams, a cancer-related checkup should include health counseling, and depending on a person's age and gender, might include exams for cancers of the thyroid, oral cavity, skin, lymph nodes, testes, and ovaries, as well as for some non-malignant (non-cancerous) diseases.
Special tests for certain cancer sites are recommended as outlined below.
Breast cancer
• Yearly mammograms are recommended starting at age 40 and continuing for as long as a woman is in good health.
• Clinical breast exam (CBE) should be part of a periodic health exam, about every 3 years for women in their 20s and 30s and every year for women 40 and over.
• Women should know how their breasts normally feel and report any breast change promptly to their health care providers. Breast self-exam (BSE) is an option for women starting in their 20s.
• Women at high risk (greater than 20% lifetime risk) should get an MRI and a mammogram every year. Women at moderately increased risk (15% to 20% lifetime risk) should talk with their doctors about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to their yearly mammogram. Yearly MRI screening is not recommended for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is less than 15%.
Colon and rectal cancer
Beginning at age 50, both men and women at average risk for developing colorectal cancer should use one of the screening tests below. The tests that are designed to find both early cancer and polyps are preferred if these tests are available to you and you are willing to have one of these more invasive tests. Talk to your doctor about which test is best for you.
Tests that find polyps and cancer
• flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years*
• colonoscopy every 10 years
• double contrast barium enema every 5 years*
• CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5 years*
Tests that mainly find cancer
• fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year*,**
• fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year*,**
• stool DNA test (sDNA), interval uncertain*
*Colonoscopy should be done if test results are positive.
**For FOBT or FIT used as a screening test, the take-home multiple sample method should be used. A FOBT or FIT done during a digital rectal exam in the doctor's office is not adequate for screening.
People should talk to their doctor about starting colorectal cancer screening earlier and/or being screened more often if they have any of the following colorectal cancer risk factors:
• a personal history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
• a personal history of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (Crohns disease or ulcerative colitis)
• a strong family history of colorectal cancer or polyps (cancer or polyps in a first-degree relative [parent, sibling, or child] younger than 60 or in 2 or more first-degree relatives of any age)
• a known family history of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC)
Cervical cancer
• All women should begin cervical cancer screening about 3 years after they begin having vaginal intercourse, but no later than when they are 21 years old. Screening should be done every year with the regular Pap test or every 2 years using the newer liquid-based Pap test.
• Beginning at age 30, women who have had 3 normal Pap test results in a row may get screened every 2 to 3 years. Another reasonable option for women over 30 is to get screened every 3 years (but not more frequently) with either the conventional or liquid-based Pap test, plus the HPV DNA test. Women who have certain risk factors such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure before birth, HIV infection, or a weakened immune system due to organ transplant, chemotherapy, or chronic steroid use should continue to be screened annually.
• Women 70 years of age or older who have had 3 or more normal Pap tests in a row and no abnormal Pap test results in the last 10 years may choose to stop having cervical cancer screening. Women with a history of cervical cancer, DES exposure before birth, HIV infection or a weakened immune system should continue to have screening as long as they are in good health.
• Women who have had a total hysterectomy (removal of the uterus and cervix) may also choose to stop having cervical cancer screening, unless the surgery was done as a treatment for cervical cancer or pre-cancer. Women who have had a hysterectomy without removal of the cervix should continue to follow the guidelines above.
Endometrial (uterine) cancer
The American Cancer Society recommends that at the time of menopause, all women should be informed about the risks and symptoms of endometrial cancer, and strongly encouraged to report any unexpected bleeding or spotting to their doctors. For women with or at high risk for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), annual screening should be offered for endometrial cancer with endometrial biopsy beginning at age 35.
Prostate cancer
Both the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and digital rectal examination (DRE) should be offered annually, beginning at age 50, to men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy. Men at high risk (African-American men and men with a strong family of one or more first-degree relatives [father, brothers] diagnosed before age 65) should begin testing at age 45. Men at even higher risk, due to multiple first-degree relatives affected at an early age, could begin testing at age 40. Depending on the results of this initial test, no further testing might be needed until age 45.
Information should be provided to all men about what is known and what is uncertain about the benefits, limitations, and harms of early detection and treatment of prostate cancer so that they can make an informed decision about testing.
Men who ask their doctor to make the decision on their behalf should be tested. Discouraging testing is not appropriate. Also, not offering testing is not appropriate.
Mobile phones and cancer
There is no strong evidence to link mobile phones to cancer
Scientific evidence so far shows that using mobile phones doesn't increase your risk of any type of cancer.
What does the evidence say?
The largest study so far on mobile phones and cancer is a Danish study, which looked at over 420,000 people. It found no link between mobile phones and any type of cancer including brain cancers and leukaemia. Even people who had been using their phones for 10 years or more did not have increased risks.
The vast majority of other studies have also found that mobile phones do not increase the risk of cancer.
A few studies have found that people with brain cancer are more likely to develop the disease on the side of the head that they hold their phone to. But they also had lower risks of developing the disease on the opposite side of their head.
This strange result is most likely to be down to chance or inaccuracies. The problem is that these studies ask people with cancer to remember how they used their phones, often many years ago. Their memories may be biased if they had previously heard about a connection between phones and cancer in the media.
Research in this field is still ongoing and Cancer Research UK will continue to look for any new evidence.
Mobile phones and cancer incidence
The use of mobile phones has skyrocketed since the 1980s. But studies in the USA and New Zealand have found that during this time, the numbers of people with brain cancer has not changed very much.
Is the radiation from mobile phones dangerous?
Mobile phones transmit and receive microwave radiation. The energy from microwave radiation is millions of times lower than that the energy from an X-ray.
This radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA, and cannot directly cause cancer.
Mobile phones also produce small amounts of heat in the brain, but again, not enough to pose a health risk.
In 2000, the UK signed up to a set of international safety standards, which set a limit on the amount of radiation given off by phones. These limits are designed to have a very large safety margin to protect people who may be more sensitive to phone radiation, such as children.
Recently, a study found that mobile phone radiation caused laboratory cells to produce proteins called ERK1 and ERK2. These are involved in cell division and they are found at high levels in some cancers.
But we don’t know whether this could affect the risk of cancer. In this study, the two proteins were only produced for a short period of time. In actual tumours, ERK1 and 2 are activated strongly and for a long time. We also don’t know if these effects in isolated cells would happen in our actual bodies, where many other things affect the levels of these proteins.
Base stations
Mobile phone base stations are unlikely to increase your cancer risk either. The exposure you would get from a base station is usually a hundred times or more below international guidelines. And it is much less than the exposure you would get from a phone.
There is a health risk…
So far, the only proven health issue associated with mobile phones is an increased risk of car accidents! People who use mobile phones while driving, even with a hands-free kit, are easily distracted and are four times more likely to be involved in an accident.
Taking precautions
Mobile phones are a recent invention. So far, studies have indicated that using these phones for about 10 years is safe. But we cannot be completely sure about their long-term effects.
Until we get a conclusive answer, the Government recommends that people take precautions. It advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short. And children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for essential calls, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing.
Scientific evidence so far shows that using mobile phones doesn't increase your risk of any type of cancer.
What does the evidence say?
The largest study so far on mobile phones and cancer is a Danish study, which looked at over 420,000 people. It found no link between mobile phones and any type of cancer including brain cancers and leukaemia. Even people who had been using their phones for 10 years or more did not have increased risks.
The vast majority of other studies have also found that mobile phones do not increase the risk of cancer.
A few studies have found that people with brain cancer are more likely to develop the disease on the side of the head that they hold their phone to. But they also had lower risks of developing the disease on the opposite side of their head.
This strange result is most likely to be down to chance or inaccuracies. The problem is that these studies ask people with cancer to remember how they used their phones, often many years ago. Their memories may be biased if they had previously heard about a connection between phones and cancer in the media.
Research in this field is still ongoing and Cancer Research UK will continue to look for any new evidence.
Mobile phones and cancer incidence
The use of mobile phones has skyrocketed since the 1980s. But studies in the USA and New Zealand have found that during this time, the numbers of people with brain cancer has not changed very much.
Is the radiation from mobile phones dangerous?
Mobile phones transmit and receive microwave radiation. The energy from microwave radiation is millions of times lower than that the energy from an X-ray.
This radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA, and cannot directly cause cancer.
Mobile phones also produce small amounts of heat in the brain, but again, not enough to pose a health risk.
In 2000, the UK signed up to a set of international safety standards, which set a limit on the amount of radiation given off by phones. These limits are designed to have a very large safety margin to protect people who may be more sensitive to phone radiation, such as children.
Recently, a study found that mobile phone radiation caused laboratory cells to produce proteins called ERK1 and ERK2. These are involved in cell division and they are found at high levels in some cancers.
But we don’t know whether this could affect the risk of cancer. In this study, the two proteins were only produced for a short period of time. In actual tumours, ERK1 and 2 are activated strongly and for a long time. We also don’t know if these effects in isolated cells would happen in our actual bodies, where many other things affect the levels of these proteins.
Base stations
Mobile phone base stations are unlikely to increase your cancer risk either. The exposure you would get from a base station is usually a hundred times or more below international guidelines. And it is much less than the exposure you would get from a phone.
There is a health risk…
So far, the only proven health issue associated with mobile phones is an increased risk of car accidents! People who use mobile phones while driving, even with a hands-free kit, are easily distracted and are four times more likely to be involved in an accident.
Taking precautions
Mobile phones are a recent invention. So far, studies have indicated that using these phones for about 10 years is safe. But we cannot be completely sure about their long-term effects.
Until we get a conclusive answer, the Government recommends that people take precautions. It advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short. And children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for essential calls, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing.
Mobile Cancer Detection Unit
The real tragedy about cancer is that it begins with very minor symptoms or none at all. Therefore the best way to guard against cancer is to have a regular yearly cancer check-up examination. Even though the very word "Cancer" sends shiver down the spine of the people, nevertheless they are generally found to be reluctant to go in for a regular periodic cancer check up on their own due to various factors.
In order to create cancer awareness and to encourage more and more people to undergo regular cancer check-ups, the Society is operating a Mobile Cancer Detection Centre to provide cancer check-up facilities to people at a nominal cost without losing any working day, at the worksite, in factories, workshops, offices, housing complexes etc. on request. This Mobile Clinic consisting of an X-ray mounted fully equipped motorised van which carries doctors (2 ENT Surgeons, 2 Gen. Surgeons and a Gynaecologist) and other para. Medical staff to the check up camp sites, can effectively carry out all the tests normally undertaken at a regular detection centre. Those who undergo cancer check-ups at these camps are given individual check-up reports and suspected cases are referred to cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment.
The details of camps conducted by the M.C.D.C. Unit at Mumbai during the last 10 years are as follows :
Year
Total No. of camps (Days)
No. of Persons examined
No. of suspected cases detected
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1989-90 79 4144 3261 7405 62 107 169
1990-91 52 2658 1800 4458 40 25 65
1991-92 120 9072 2095 11167 73 22 95
1992-93 65 3431 2128 5559 45 23 68
1993-94 68 3487 1905 5392 86 20 106
1994-95 73 4699 2064 6763 93 22 115
1995-96 68 4488 1895 6383 88 29 117
1996-97 67 2818 3179 5997 52 45 97
1997-98 70 4078 1867 5945 76 17 93
1998-99 72 3820 2569 6389 91 35 126
Since its inception in May, 1982 upto the end of March 1999, the MCDC Unit has examined 1,00,322 persons (68,878 Males + 31,444 Females) out of which 1761 suspected cases (1249 Males + 512 Females) were detected and referred to Cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment. Similar Mobile Cancer Detection Units are functioning successfully at the Society's branches at Delhi and Calcutta also.
In order to create cancer awareness and to encourage more and more people to undergo regular cancer check-ups, the Society is operating a Mobile Cancer Detection Centre to provide cancer check-up facilities to people at a nominal cost without losing any working day, at the worksite, in factories, workshops, offices, housing complexes etc. on request. This Mobile Clinic consisting of an X-ray mounted fully equipped motorised van which carries doctors (2 ENT Surgeons, 2 Gen. Surgeons and a Gynaecologist) and other para. Medical staff to the check up camp sites, can effectively carry out all the tests normally undertaken at a regular detection centre. Those who undergo cancer check-ups at these camps are given individual check-up reports and suspected cases are referred to cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment.
The details of camps conducted by the M.C.D.C. Unit at Mumbai during the last 10 years are as follows :
Year
Total No. of camps (Days)
No. of Persons examined
No. of suspected cases detected
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1989-90 79 4144 3261 7405 62 107 169
1990-91 52 2658 1800 4458 40 25 65
1991-92 120 9072 2095 11167 73 22 95
1992-93 65 3431 2128 5559 45 23 68
1993-94 68 3487 1905 5392 86 20 106
1994-95 73 4699 2064 6763 93 22 115
1995-96 68 4488 1895 6383 88 29 117
1996-97 67 2818 3179 5997 52 45 97
1997-98 70 4078 1867 5945 76 17 93
1998-99 72 3820 2569 6389 91 35 126
Since its inception in May, 1982 upto the end of March 1999, the MCDC Unit has examined 1,00,322 persons (68,878 Males + 31,444 Females) out of which 1761 suspected cases (1249 Males + 512 Females) were detected and referred to Cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment. Similar Mobile Cancer Detection Units are functioning successfully at the Society's branches at Delhi and Calcutta also.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Mobile And Wireless - Largest Biological Experiment
It is getting quite difficult to imagine a world without mobile communications. Wireless internet access is set to blanket the planet, just like cell phone networks already do. There has been an explosive development - practically all during the last three decades - that brought mobile to the farthest corners of the earth. But the technology is not without danger. The microwaves that carry bits and packets of data also carry a germ of destruction. Some people - as many as 120,000 Californians - and by implication 1 million Americans - are actually unable to work as they suffer from the incapacitating influence that this cacophony in the ether has on them.
We might say they are the unlucky ones who have to suffer for progress to continue - but have you ever heard of canaries in the mines? They were the first ones to die when a potentially deadly but otherwise undetectable accumulation of "mine gas" threatened the lives of the miners working underground. What if those 120.000 Californians and the one million Americans and by extension tens of millions of people world wide are in a very real sense our equivalent of deep-mine canaries? Are we not ignoring their plight at our own very imminent peril?
Arthur Firstenberg, himself a sufferer of what the Russians call "microwave sickness" has put together the salient facts about the largest biological experiment ever, in a very readable article published in the Eldorado Sun.
We cannot call ourselves informed in the wireless debate unless we start looking at its dark side as well as all the positive aspects. Firstenberg's article is as good as any to get us going in this direction ...
In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss’s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.
Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects.
As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life.
The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world.
Fundamentals
The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.
Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.
As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.
Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.
The Blood-Brain Barrier
The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating.
The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection.
Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.1 Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons.
The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being.
These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years.
America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier.2 Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.3 The implication:
No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone.
Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld
cell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s disease by the time they reach middle age.
Radio-Wave Sickness
Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact.
Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm.
I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something about this,” while nothing is done.
Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding.
What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution.4 The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives.
“They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997.5,6 After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.
Uncontrolled Proliferation
If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question.7 They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!
Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years.8 In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet.
The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them.
The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.
To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor — because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover.
Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe.
Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is already is — is now.
NOTES
1. Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881–883.
2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433–439.
3. Allan H. Frey, “Evolution and Results
of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,” in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785–837, at 809–810.
4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3.
5. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “1997 — A Curious Year in Sweden,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535–538.
6. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop “Biological Effects of EMFs,” Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361–364.
7. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,”
Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3–8.
8. David E. Janes Jr., “Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,” in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10–14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1–31.4.5.
We might say they are the unlucky ones who have to suffer for progress to continue - but have you ever heard of canaries in the mines? They were the first ones to die when a potentially deadly but otherwise undetectable accumulation of "mine gas" threatened the lives of the miners working underground. What if those 120.000 Californians and the one million Americans and by extension tens of millions of people world wide are in a very real sense our equivalent of deep-mine canaries? Are we not ignoring their plight at our own very imminent peril?
Arthur Firstenberg, himself a sufferer of what the Russians call "microwave sickness" has put together the salient facts about the largest biological experiment ever, in a very readable article published in the Eldorado Sun.
We cannot call ourselves informed in the wireless debate unless we start looking at its dark side as well as all the positive aspects. Firstenberg's article is as good as any to get us going in this direction ...
In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss’s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.
Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects.
As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life.
The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world.
Fundamentals
The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.
Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.
As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.
Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.
The Blood-Brain Barrier
The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating.
The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection.
Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement.1 Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons.
The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being.
These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years.
America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier.2 Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also.3 The implication:
No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone.
Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheld
cell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s disease by the time they reach middle age.
Radio-Wave Sickness
Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact.
Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm.
I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something about this,” while nothing is done.
Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding.
What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution.4 The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives.
“They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997.5,6 After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.
Uncontrolled Proliferation
If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question.7 They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!
Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years.8 In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet.
The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them.
The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.
To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor — because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover.
Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe.
Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is already is — is now.
NOTES
1. Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881–883.
2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433–439.
3. Allan H. Frey, “Evolution and Results
of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,” in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785–837, at 809–810.
4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3.
5. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “1997 — A Curious Year in Sweden,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535–538.
6. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop “Biological Effects of EMFs,” Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361–364.
7. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,”
Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3–8.
8. David E. Janes Jr., “Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,” in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10–14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1–31.4.5.
In Brazil Cancer of Penis Kills More than Prostate Cancer
A rare disease in Europe and the United States, the cancer of penis is a serious problem in Brazil mainly in the Northeast, where the incidence of the disease can be higher than 4 for 100,000 men.
In Europe and the U.S., penile cancer represents less than 0.5% of all cancers, affecting less than 1 in 100,000 men.
In the Brazilian state of Ceará alone, every month, two new cases of the disease are diagnosed at the ICC (Instituto do Câncer do Ceará - Ceará's Cancer Institute). In the last 5 years, at least 145 men had their penis amputated there due to penile cancer.
To better understand, prevent and treat the disease Brazilian urologists are collecting data in order to elaborate the 1st Epidemiological Study of Cancer of Penis in Brazil.
The results of the study should be known next year, according to doctor Agnaldo Nardi, the epidemiology coordinator for the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU). "The disease is very serious and destroys a man in his own notion of human being," says Nardi.
In Brazil, according to the National Institute of Cancer, penile cancer comprises 2% of all cancer cases among men. It's a disease for the most part preventable with soap and water.
In its initial phase the cancer can be treated without mutilation. In Ceará, however, most of the men who come looking for help cannot be helped because the disease is already too advanced, amputation being the only thing left to the doctor. Patients generally are older men who work in farms and have poor hygiene habits.
Preliminary data from the SBU study show that Maranhão, Ceará, Pernambuco, Bahia and Pará are the Brazilian states with the larger concentration of penis cancer cases.
In Maranhão the situation is the worst with 16% of all male cancers being penile cancer. In that state cancer of the penis kills more than prostate cancer.
The Brazilian Society of Urology believes that an aggressive education campaign about the disease with information on better hygienic habits could eradicate the disease in 15 years.
Penis wounds that won't heal, bad smelling lumps with secretion as well as whitish stains on the penis are some of the symptoms of the cancer.
In Europe and the U.S., penile cancer represents less than 0.5% of all cancers, affecting less than 1 in 100,000 men.
In the Brazilian state of Ceará alone, every month, two new cases of the disease are diagnosed at the ICC (Instituto do Câncer do Ceará - Ceará's Cancer Institute). In the last 5 years, at least 145 men had their penis amputated there due to penile cancer.
To better understand, prevent and treat the disease Brazilian urologists are collecting data in order to elaborate the 1st Epidemiological Study of Cancer of Penis in Brazil.
The results of the study should be known next year, according to doctor Agnaldo Nardi, the epidemiology coordinator for the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU). "The disease is very serious and destroys a man in his own notion of human being," says Nardi.
In Brazil, according to the National Institute of Cancer, penile cancer comprises 2% of all cancer cases among men. It's a disease for the most part preventable with soap and water.
In its initial phase the cancer can be treated without mutilation. In Ceará, however, most of the men who come looking for help cannot be helped because the disease is already too advanced, amputation being the only thing left to the doctor. Patients generally are older men who work in farms and have poor hygiene habits.
Preliminary data from the SBU study show that Maranhão, Ceará, Pernambuco, Bahia and Pará are the Brazilian states with the larger concentration of penis cancer cases.
In Maranhão the situation is the worst with 16% of all male cancers being penile cancer. In that state cancer of the penis kills more than prostate cancer.
The Brazilian Society of Urology believes that an aggressive education campaign about the disease with information on better hygienic habits could eradicate the disease in 15 years.
Penis wounds that won't heal, bad smelling lumps with secretion as well as whitish stains on the penis are some of the symptoms of the cancer.
Security on high alert to stop fowl smuggling
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, July 28: Contributing their mite in the ongoing fight against further spread and containment of Avian Influenza outbreak, security forces have intensified the vigil over any possible attempt to smuggle out domesticated fowls beyond 5 km radius of the affected area.
Acknowledging the logistic support of the security forces, officials of the State Veterinary and Animal Husbandry (VAH) maintained that the situation is almost under control and culling of the domesticated fowls is being carried out on fast pace by the VAH personnel within the designated 5 kms radius areas.
Inspector General of Police S Dinokumar Singh, who is also looking after the law and order situation in the valley areas, said the police personnel have been keeping vigil to detect any possible attempt of smuggling out domesticated fowls from affected area.
'Whenever out men detect such movement, the domesticated birds are seized and the same handed over to VAH authorities at once for doing the needful', the police officer said, adding that besides deployment of security personnel at strategic points to foil smuggling out of birds, mobile teams are fanning out in and around the affected areas.
Additional SP of Imphal West Md Jalil, who is the nodal officer of the district responsible for the detection of such unauthorised movements, said 'we discharge out duties in the most effective manner so as to ensure that no birds moved out from the affected areas'.
SP of Imphal East L Kailun informed that apart from engaging mobile teams to detect such movements 'we also stationed our men at certain transit points at Irilbung and Lamlai area'.
Lamlai Road leads to Ukhrul district while Irilbung leads to Yairipok and Thoubal districts.
SP of Thoubal district Dr S Iboch Singh said over 200 fowls brought from Imphal were seized by the police and the local people at wangoi and Sekmaijin area yesterday and the same handed over to the VAH authorities.
VAH officials said the police have been extending its fullest co-operation in the ongoing surveillance exercise by way of seizing the illegal transportation of fowls and handing over the same to the Department.
The seized domesticated birds are culled and buried, they said, while informing that RRT teams have culled 9472 birds on Thursday and 16,000 yesterday.
Meanwhile, in support of the Government order, the Imphal Municpal Council (IMC) has imposed a total ban on transportation of poultry, poultry meat and other poultry products within its jurisdiction with immediate effect.
Though there is no report of affecting human being, the State Health Department has also been stepping up its surveillance of health examination of the people living within the radius of 5 kms of the affected area.
The number of Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) has also been increased from 10 to 40.
Imphal, July 28: Contributing their mite in the ongoing fight against further spread and containment of Avian Influenza outbreak, security forces have intensified the vigil over any possible attempt to smuggle out domesticated fowls beyond 5 km radius of the affected area.
Acknowledging the logistic support of the security forces, officials of the State Veterinary and Animal Husbandry (VAH) maintained that the situation is almost under control and culling of the domesticated fowls is being carried out on fast pace by the VAH personnel within the designated 5 kms radius areas.
Inspector General of Police S Dinokumar Singh, who is also looking after the law and order situation in the valley areas, said the police personnel have been keeping vigil to detect any possible attempt of smuggling out domesticated fowls from affected area.
'Whenever out men detect such movement, the domesticated birds are seized and the same handed over to VAH authorities at once for doing the needful', the police officer said, adding that besides deployment of security personnel at strategic points to foil smuggling out of birds, mobile teams are fanning out in and around the affected areas.
Additional SP of Imphal West Md Jalil, who is the nodal officer of the district responsible for the detection of such unauthorised movements, said 'we discharge out duties in the most effective manner so as to ensure that no birds moved out from the affected areas'.
SP of Imphal East L Kailun informed that apart from engaging mobile teams to detect such movements 'we also stationed our men at certain transit points at Irilbung and Lamlai area'.
Lamlai Road leads to Ukhrul district while Irilbung leads to Yairipok and Thoubal districts.
SP of Thoubal district Dr S Iboch Singh said over 200 fowls brought from Imphal were seized by the police and the local people at wangoi and Sekmaijin area yesterday and the same handed over to the VAH authorities.
VAH officials said the police have been extending its fullest co-operation in the ongoing surveillance exercise by way of seizing the illegal transportation of fowls and handing over the same to the Department.
The seized domesticated birds are culled and buried, they said, while informing that RRT teams have culled 9472 birds on Thursday and 16,000 yesterday.
Meanwhile, in support of the Government order, the Imphal Municpal Council (IMC) has imposed a total ban on transportation of poultry, poultry meat and other poultry products within its jurisdiction with immediate effect.
Though there is no report of affecting human being, the State Health Department has also been stepping up its surveillance of health examination of the people living within the radius of 5 kms of the affected area.
The number of Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) has also been increased from 10 to 40.
Mobile Communication and Human Concerns
Imagine twenty to thirty years back how people in our society used to keep contacts and communicate with their friends, families staying far off, it was predominantly through handwritten letters. Then the telecom revolution came and slowly but surely the habit of writing letters took a downturn. Next the internet and subsequently the mobile communication started revolutionize our lifestyle. In future, mobile phones will not be restricted only for voice communications but for email, video-conferencing, automated home environment settings and what not. Undoubtedly, mobile communication offers enormous advantages –extra convenience, greater personal security, instant connectivity at anywhere-anytime and inherent ability to take advantage of doing business on the move. But this is only one side of the coin, the other side is not that all rosy. Mobile communication is an emerging technology today and it has concerns about environmental & social impacts, health and safety issues. The impact of mobile phone usage on human health is perhaps the most concerning one. Mobile phones radiates Electromagnetic waves which causes harm to human body mainly to the brain. Extensive research has been undertaken to understand the effect of using mobile phones on human body, researchers have different opinion on the exact impact but all results undoubtedly emphasise on the fact that excessive use of mobile phone has negative impact on health, the exact extent of which is perhaps a matter of contention and debate. In order to over come this concern , a lot of expert opinions emerged like using hands-free mobile phones etc. but are also not free of dangers. Human brain cannot be involved in too many things together. When a person is talking on a mobile phone ,he can not give full attention to the surroundings and that has caused many unwanted incidents of road accidents, human life is bit too much of a price for the sake of being remain connected all the time. Perhaps there is nothing as destructive and disturbing as the ringing of a mobile phone in meetings , theatre hall and other public places. In an increasingly ‘unwired’ world, poor mobile phone etiquette is undoubtedly world’s biggest collective gripe. The problem of social alienation is hardest to ignore, many end up spending more time speaking to people they are not with at the expense of those who are there. Many a time it can be seen that a group of people sitting together , all talking on their mobile phones with those who are not present there. This is a dangerous trend and is going to destroy our sense of social cohesion. Human brain seems to give more importance to the incoming electronic signals than the interpersonal signals coming from a fellow human being in front of us. With the web enabled mobile phones , people have the luxury of accessing internet , email on their mobile phones and remain ‘online’, as a result what is happening is we are increasingly losing permanence, aesthetics and humanity of communication to an impersonal, unresponsive object. Mobile phones are making it easier to commit organized crime as it allows the criminals to remain in touch all the time. The Short Message Service (SMS) may be a great hit among teenagers and computer geeks, but it has become an anathema for the police because a large number of criminals are using this service, considered as safe medium of communication. The future generation of mobile communication system will enable a person to turn-on, oven to pre-heat, TV etc. even before he reaches home and as a result machine-to-machine interaction will be increasing and person –to-person interaction will be reducing further. Perhaps in future there will be very little difference between a human being and supercomputer aided Robot. Mobile communication is an evolving and not a matured technology today. History reveals the fact that every technical innovation does take time to get social acceptance and get integrated in to human society. It takes time and effort to make use of technical innovations in a human friendly manner rather than as an enemy to the human society. If mobile phone is causing health concern, it can be overcome by using low-power mobile phones etc. People can be trained on mobile phone etiquette to cultivate a greater level of awareness and to ensure that their mobile phones are not negatively impacting the lives of those around them. If it is making easier to commit organized crime, Mobile phones can also be very effectively used to prevent the criminal acts. As the technology gets matured and penetrates into society, the associated over enthusiasm of unnecessary usage will also come down. With little but determined effort by everyone –the users, the technology developers, the operators, the content providers, the government authorities, mobile communication will surely make our life more convenient, secure offering more freedom and ultimately creating a rich and cohesive society, the little choice that every one has to make is whether mobile communication is to be perceived as “Communication between people” or “connecting people”. Contributor Mr. Pallab Dutta is working as a Group Co-Ordinator (CDMA Group) in C-DOT (Centre for Development of Telematics, Govt of India) at Bangalore. He can be contacted at Pallab
Telecommunication and Human Culture
I was told somewhere that near the famed Khufu’s Pyramid in Giza, Egypt, there is a Microwave Tower and in a desert evening, the shining star’s pale rays touch both the relics of human origin, some 2500 years apart in their construction. If Pyramids were constructs to connect the Dead to the Living, the Microwave Tower also connects, with a less spectacular ambition and more verifiable results. Both used Technologies available at their time and both are humanity’s constant endeavor to change the terra firma of our planet. The changed geometry of our planets surface (buildings, canals, bridges, roadways, runways, Microwave Towers, Antennas), of its upper atmosphere (satellites, probes, airplanes, jets), of its ocean beds (with Submarine Cables) and of its radio spectrum. If an extra-terrestrial observer is observing our planet in radio frequencies since the day Alexander conquered Persia, he will suddenly find tremendous activity in the radio-emission in our planet for last hundred years. The observer will wonder and if he/she can attribute this sudden spurt of radio emission to something to do with Intelligent Civilization, he/she will be one of our brothers in this vastness of space. The urge to connect beyond boundaries, to know, to experience and to understand is the hallmark of our species and Telecommunication is maturing to display this passion in diverse and different ways.
Human beings have a strange liking – they not only change the geometry of land, space and sea, but also of the ideas, thoughts and feelings. These two changes are interconnected in a very strange way. The resonance behind the working of human mind and the manifestation of the ideas can only be compared with the idea of a tree hidden in small seed, a complex genetic code in a double-stranded helix or a complete instruction set in a finger thin microchip. Human Culture or Cultural deposits are like sediments on a riverbed after intense and gradual activity for a long period of time. The ancient cultures were once modern just like a child is a child to his own age. The greatest and the shining offerings of Telecommunication to our Life & Times underline this fundamental facet of human culture worldwide – Connection is an experience.
Telecommunication was an idea. It first carried news, then information, then became broader in capacity and combined computing to create a low-cost and affordable network that is slowly covering the globe, however in quite a heterogeneous density worldwide. The TV took around 13 years to gather as much as viewer, which Internet made in half a decade. The combination of Computing and Communication Technologies had a dramatic long-term effect on cultural life. The most visible one is Email which coupled with Internet had a linguistics, lexicography and protocol of its own. Human beings for the first time in human history were forced to live culturally switched lives and identity also became switched – online and offline. It is tempting to compare the generic division in a Roman state – Slave or Freeman. Telecommunication has provided us with freedom hitherto unknown but also signals an age of digital slavery where – “there is no escape for anyone, anywhere.” Telecommunication was a thing to talk. It was an extension of our vocal chord and the elaborate bio-cultural process that creates language and phonetic symbols. The POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) would have seemed a miraculous way of the triumph of Oral Tradition over Written Codes to the ancient philosophers like Plato who says – “I told you so.” But with computing attached to Telecom, we use a keyboard that is almost the same one as used in Remington Typewriters. The Mouse was nothing but the stick of the teacher in the blackboard in high schools. The Hypertext was long back invented – in the narrative storytelling of Epics where inside a single narration there were more and more stories and myths, “linked” by some curse materializing or some prophecy fulfilling or something else. Ancient poets created labyrinth of an Epic in structure and design. Internet also created a labyrinth, spread globally, connected through generation of technologies, combining entities that are diverse, large and in a word – awful. Internet was the single largest triumph of “scripts” and “symbols” over spoken words and without telecommunication; this triumph would not have been a matter of global celebration as well as concern.
But Irony is a constituent or the very fabric of Life. Just like after TV when people were thinking that Radio (understood to be broadcasting radio) is a museum thing, Radio Technology metamorphosed into something very very different – Mobile phones. Similarly, we are witnessing another shift in man-machine interface. Speech or oral symbols are infinitely easier for us to deal in the everyday world rather than mathematical symbols or programming environment. In spite of mathematician’s refrain, there is always a fear associated with mathematics. I don’t think “Popular Mathematics” and more mathematicians writing easy and lucid texts will make this fear altogether disappear. I think this fear has a survival value and Evolution, eternally economical and without value judgment has designed the majority that way. Because, Life does not work in an exactly analytical way as mathematicians or computer scientists (or AI people) would love to think and preach but through a web of tentative, tottering, amorphous and ambiguous and contradictory network of Everything. Same with a common man’s response to Computers. Programmers are rare whereas intelligent people are many. This is not because people have some grudge against programming in general but of the same survival value. The overwhelming ease when Speech will be the interface is another watershed event for civilization. Because, it will be a full circle again. From Voice to Data. Again from Data to Voice. And Together.
The parting gift – a telephone story. Once a sleeping man was awakened by a long distance Telephone call in the early morning. He took the phone half-asleep and heard a woman’s voice. “..Sorry. I think I have disturbed your sleep.”. The man said – “Who’s this?” “It’s me, its me…Sleep. Sorry.” Before she could escape into the cold click of hanging-up the phone, the man shot back – “Do you think I am asleep? I am a Telephone Operator”. Click. Speech is such a strong personal asset of ours that in speaking we forget that this speech is passing through innumerable transformations and at multiple points others could hear it. Unless we all turn to be some spy, holders of state secret or of similar sort, we will speak over a phone, lay men and technical men alike – nothing exists but the caller, the called and the ring in the beinging.
In the Beginning was the Ring. Then He spoke. The Speech Continued. It went past neighborhood, the state, the country, the Continent, the Planet and we are waiting for the Ring from the Others, the Beyond of Us as well as the Within of Us.
Telecommunication and Human Culture
I was told somewhere that near the famed Khufu’s Pyramid in Giza, Egypt, there is a Microwave Tower and in a desert evening, the shining star’s pale rays touch both the relics of human origin, some 2500 years apart in their construction. If Pyramids were constructs to connect the Dead to the Living, the Microwave Tower also connects, with a less spectacular ambition and more verifiable results. Both used Technologies available at their time and both are humanity’s constant endeavor to change the terra firma of our planet. The changed geometry of our planets surface (buildings, canals, bridges, roadways, runways, Microwave Towers, Antennas), of its upper atmosphere (satellites, probes, airplanes, jets), of its ocean beds (with Submarine Cables) and of its radio spectrum. If an extra-terrestrial observer is observing our planet in radio frequencies since the day Alexander conquered Persia, he will suddenly find tremendous activity in the radio-emission in our planet for last hundred years. The observer will wonder and if he/she can attribute this sudden spurt of radio emission to something to do with Intelligent Civilization, he/she will be one of our brothers in this vastness of space. The urge to connect beyond boundaries, to know, to experience and to understand is the hallmark of our species and Telecommunication is maturing to display this passion in diverse and different ways.
Human beings have a strange liking – they not only change the geometry of land, space and sea, but also of the ideas, thoughts and feelings. These two changes are interconnected in a very strange way. The resonance behind the working of human mind and the manifestation of the ideas can only be compared with the idea of a tree hidden in small seed, a complex genetic code in a double-stranded helix or a complete instruction set in a finger thin microchip. Human Culture or Cultural deposits are like sediments on a riverbed after intense and gradual activity for a long period of time. The ancient cultures were once modern just like a child is a child to his own age. The greatest and the shining offerings of Telecommunication to our Life & Times underline this fundamental facet of human culture worldwide – Connection is an experience.
Telecommunication was an idea. It first carried news, then information, then became broader in capacity and combined computing to create a low-cost and affordable network that is slowly covering the globe, however in quite a heterogeneous density worldwide. The TV took around 13 years to gather as much as viewer, which Internet made in half a decade. The combination of Computing and Communication Technologies had a dramatic long-term effect on cultural life. The most visible one is Email which coupled with Internet had a linguistics, lexicography and protocol of its own. Human beings for the first time in human history were forced to live culturally switched lives and identity also became switched – online and offline. It is tempting to compare the generic division in a Roman state – Slave or Freeman. Telecommunication has provided us with freedom hitherto unknown but also signals an age of digital slavery where – “there is no escape for anyone, anywhere.” Telecommunication was a thing to talk. It was an extension of our vocal chord and the elaborate bio-cultural process that creates language and phonetic symbols. The POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) would have seemed a miraculous way of the triumph of Oral Tradition over Written Codes to the ancient philosophers like Plato who says – “I told you so.” But with computing attached to Telecom, we use a keyboard that is almost the same one as used in Remington Typewriters. The Mouse was nothing but the stick of the teacher in the blackboard in high schools. The Hypertext was long back invented – in the narrative storytelling of Epics where inside a single narration there were more and more stories and myths, “linked” by some curse materializing or some prophecy fulfilling or something else. Ancient poets created labyrinth of an Epic in structure and design. Internet also created a labyrinth, spread globally, connected through generation of technologies, combining entities that are diverse, large and in a word – awful. Internet was the single largest triumph of “scripts” and “symbols” over spoken words and without telecommunication; this triumph would not have been a matter of global celebration as well as concern.
But Irony is a constituent or the very fabric of Life. Just like after TV when people were thinking that Radio (understood to be broadcasting radio) is a museum thing, Radio Technology metamorphosed into something very very different – Mobile phones. Similarly, we are witnessing another shift in man-machine interface. Speech or oral symbols are infinitely easier for us to deal in the everyday world rather than mathematical symbols or programming environment. In spite of mathematician’s refrain, there is always a fear associated with mathematics. I don’t think “Popular Mathematics” and more mathematicians writing easy and lucid texts will make this fear altogether disappear. I think this fear has a survival value and Evolution, eternally economical and without value judgment has designed the majority that way. Because, Life does not work in an exactly analytical way as mathematicians or computer scientists (or AI people) would love to think and preach but through a web of tentative, tottering, amorphous and ambiguous and contradictory network of Everything. Same with a common man’s response to Computers. Programmers are rare whereas intelligent people are many. This is not because people have some grudge against programming in general but of the same survival value. The overwhelming ease when Speech will be the interface is another watershed event for civilization. Because, it will be a full circle again. From Voice to Data. Again from Data to Voice. And Together.
The parting gift – a telephone story. Once a sleeping man was awakened by a long distance Telephone call in the early morning. He took the phone half-asleep and heard a woman’s voice. “..Sorry. I think I have disturbed your sleep.”. The man said – “Who’s this?” “It’s me, its me…Sleep. Sorry.” Before she could escape into the cold click of hanging-up the phone, the man shot back – “Do you think I am asleep? I am a Telephone Operator”. Click. Speech is such a strong personal asset of ours that in speaking we forget that this speech is passing through innumerable transformations and at multiple points others could hear it. Unless we all turn to be some spy, holders of state secret or of similar sort, we will speak over a phone, lay men and technical men alike – nothing exists but the caller, the called and the ring in the beinging.
In the Beginning was the Ring. Then He spoke. The Speech Continued. It went past neighborhood, the state, the country, the Continent, the Planet and we are waiting for the Ring from the Others, the Beyond of Us as well as the Within of Us.
Mobile Communication
There are three types of people in this world:
* Those that make things happen.
* Those that watch things happen.
* Those who wonder “what happened??”
Everyone agrees that wireless industry and economy, and most of the time the synergy between the two are making things happen, let us at least try to be among those watching rather than those wondering.
Pickup any newspaper or general magazine today, we are sure of finding an article some where relating to mobile communication and most of the time if not in technical section we find it in the business section. This is because of the simple reason that it is virtually affecting everyone’s life in one way or other. Some times it becomes a major political issue and some times an economic issue of immense importance.
Let us try to understand what is this “Mobile Communication” all about : what is its past, what is its present and what is its future and how it is going to change in future, the way we communicate today. We will also try to see how far this wave of changing scenario-affecting India.
Mobile communication in its simplest sense means ‘Communication while in move’ i.e.; the technology which enables us to communicate with rest of the world while we are in move is called mobile communication and this is the reason why it must be wireless unlike conventional telephones.
When we talk of wireless technology, it involves all types and forms of wireless mode of communication, one of them and perhaps the most challenging and dynamic one is mobile communication. Under the vast umbrella of wireless communication, the technologies like point-to-point wireless link, point-to-multipoint link, cordless telephony etc. also comes. But these are not mobile communication although wireless for the reason that these technologies do not allow (or deal with) seamless movement of the user over a large area i.e.; a city or a state or a country.
We will focus mainly on mobile communication and try to understand how mobile communication is going to change the very concept of communication, as we understand today.
Let us have a feel of the mobile communication system . It consists of a mobile terminal (MT), which the user carries along with him; the base station (BS) which communicates with MTs via wireless medium and MTSO (mobile telephone switching office) which is responsible for setting up all connections. The area covered by a BS is called a Cell. As a user moves from one cell to other, the system “handsoff” the call to the new cell. Multiple cells are used in order to accommodate more number of users (by a concept known as ‘frequency reuse’) and also to minimize the battery consumption of MT. This gives a generic view of mobile communication system, but this has been modified and changed over the decades in order to accommodate more features in more and more efficient ways.
Mobile communication like all other systems has evolved through number of generations: First generation (1G) is the past, Second generation (2G) is the present, Third generation (3G) is the near future; Fourth generation (4G) is the future. Also 2.5G, is the latest. First generation system was an analog technology based on a concept called FDMA(Frequency division multiple access) where each user is given a frequency band to communicate. It started way back in early eighties and even today it is popular in some parts of the world. In U.S. it is adhering to a family of standards called AMPS( Advanced Mobile Phone Service), in Europe it is TACS and in Japan JTACS. This generation of mobile phones were meant only for voice communication. Because of the limitations of analog technology and with digital revolution , the second generation of mobile communication came in to existence in early nineties. GSM ( Global system for mobile communication) is a classic example of 2nd generation mobile communication and is expanding at a rate of 10,000 subscribers a day on date. GSM is based on a concept known as TDMA(Time division Multiple access) . In 2nd generation also it was restricted mainly to voice communication but low data rate services were introduced. SMS(Short Message Service) is an example of low data rate services and today we experience the massive growth of SMS application. This is one of the most popular services especially among the younger generations and in many places of the world the GSM system hangs due to excessive use of SMS on special days like 14th of Feb. With the increasing popularity of data services and internet boom, 2.5G was introduced which allows the access of internet through mobile phones using a technology called WAP( Wireless Access Protocol) up to a data rate of 15-70Kbps.
With the extreme popularity of internet , people got used( or addicted ) to it and started expecting of using internet and downloading huge MP3 files in seconds while moving at a speed of 200Km per hour. All these were not possible with 2G or 2.5G and that’s how 3G was thought of. 3G mobile system will support other than voice, video telephony , video games, multimedia, net-browsing, network games, email, downloading, all these while moving at a speed of 200Km/hr and at a very high data rate. 3G will allow a user to talk to some one at the same time download huge MP3 files. Above all these, some thing call ‘location based services’ will be possible, i.e.; using the 3G mobile phone, the user will be able to get all information regarding near by hotels, restaurants, places of visits etc. when he is walking through the streets of an unknown city surrounded by unknown faces. Also when a user will make an emergency call, his location will be automatically found out by police or hospitals so that he can be assisted immediately. All these and many more innovative services will be provided by 3G mobile communication system. 3G system is based on CDMA(Code division multiple access). The beginning of convergence of communication and computing is the central to the idea of 3G system. It is expected to be operational by 2003-2004 in some parts of the world. But a global standard for 3G was also not possible due to high profile lobbing of U.S. and Europe, this means that the user of 3G mobile phone may not be fortunate enough to use the same phone in all parts of the world and get access to these innovative and high end services.
There is no limit to human ambitions. We have already seen the range of killer applications those will be provided by 3G system, but concepts of 4G(the future generation of Mobile Communication System) has already started evolving, although 3G itself is expected 1-2 years down the line. The migrations from 1G to 2G and 2G to 3G are perhaps evolution but migration from 3G to 4G as many think, will be a revolution rather than evolution both from technological and user perspectives. 4G network today is only an evolving concept, there is no real definition of what 4G will be. The concept of convergence has already began with 3G , 4G will bring about convergence of communication, computing, broadcasting etc. Today a normal urban person is his daily life uses a phone(fixed or mobile), computer, TV, Music system, Radio, Video camera , digital dairy , door locking system etc. etc. . But today there is no linkage between them i.e.; for a user these all are different equipments and to be used independently and separately. The whole idea of 4G is to have automated and autonomous machine-to-machine interaction between all the above mentioned and all other equipments. Different equipments are used by people at different places e.g.; TV is used at home, high end computer at workplace and so on. In future the devices will interact among themselves as the user arrives at home for example, they will form a home area network. Similarly as the user moves to workplace , the devices will interact automatically among themselves and will form Office Area Network and in most cases without the knowledge or intervention of the user. As a person moves between environments, the personal profile and preferences will move with him i.e.; suppose a person moves to a hotel room , TV channel will be changed automatically as per that person’s preference which he watches at home and these will be possible without intervention of the user. Thus we can visualize 4G as two level of communication : Communication between MT and all equipments like TV etc. inside a room and the communication between MT and base station(i.e. with outside world) as in previous generations of systems. In future we can see an increasing trend of personal mobile assistants which will almost transparently do credit card payment, online shopping with very little inputs from the user. The heart of all these converged and automated environments are “embedded radio” and “pervasive computing”. Embedded radio conceptualises the presence of single chip radio embedded in all equipments like TV, Mobile, Digital camera etc. so that they can communicate among them selves. The concept of “pervasive computing” is being promoted by computer scientists for decades which essentially theorizes that computing devices will be embedded virtually in everything and all those computing devices will be able to share information. Internet has accelerated interest in pervasive computing ; wireless network which can support this vision are a natural but ambitious continuation of the same concept.
The communication between MT and base station (i.e.; MT and Outside world) will be OFDM(orthogonal frequency division multiplexing ) which is a more efficient access technology than CDMA. Also 4G strongly visualizes communication ‘any time, any where and any mode’ which was in some respect a major limitation of 3G system. Increase in data rates of the user is also one of the major requirements of future generation of mobile communication system and it is expected to give 1000 times more bandwidth than what is available to a mobile user today.
All these high end services will be possible only with the implementation and physical realization of technical buzzwords like ‘IPv6’,’Mobile IP’, ‘Software Radio’ , ‘orthogonal frequency demodulation’, ‘Hyper LAN’, ‘Bluetooth’ and many more. All these do not become a reality over night and at free of cost but with billions of dollars of investment and years of research. It is expected that 4G services will be available only by 2010-2015, although it seems a long way from now but already research programs has started to actualise these concepts. Now the obvious question comes, who requires such high end services and also whether all these are going to be a reality or just a hype? With the increasing popularity of data and multimedia services , it is expected that these services will actually be on high demand in future. As we all know “Necessity is the mother of invention” but some times it works even other way round i.e.; technical innovations are used to create new/hidden necessities and some may call it a luxury, which is a topic of big debate and depends on the socio-economic condition of the people of a particular place. But in the past we have seen many technical innovations did not really took a commercial shape because of economic reasons and one classic example of this is the IRIDIUM project which was a technical success but a perhaps a commercial blunder.
Let’s try to see in brief, the scenario of mobile communication in India. In India we can see an expansion of GSM ( the 2nd generation system) system. Although the penetration in India is much less compare to U.S. and neighbouring China , it is surely picking up at a very fast pace. In India the mobile subscriber penetration is 0.6%( out of 1000 people, 6 has a mobile phone). In the state of Assam it is 0.1 % and in rest of NE it is as low as 0.038% . This kind of low penetration is due to socio-economic reasons but with the deregulation of Telecom sector , the penetration is expected to go high. Also we can expect 3G services will become a reality even in India, sooner or later. 4G services may look bit too futuristic at this point of time not only in India but else where.
To conclude we can say that , technical problems of the futuristic mobile communication systems may be solvable but economic and business justification for such a network is more complex. At the core, the future systems and concepts requires a fundamental change of orientation for wireless network operators- away from providing discrete services which they control and towards being a provider of access for users in parallel with other networks. By definition, they will required to support standard protocols for connectivity, billing, content and applications. At this moment this may not be the case every where. Despite of all these , the future generations of mobile systems will play a very important role in years to come. The road ahead for mobile and wireless industry may seems to be confusing and changing market conditions will be the final decider , many are keeping their finger crossed and hoping for the best. In such a rapidly evolving environment, it is difficult to predict when 4G or pervasive computing will finally become widespread realities but by the same token they seem unlikely to simply vanish . The importance of future mobile communication systems like 4G, inspires debates and visionary thinking which are both important steps for wireless industry to move forward. Whatever may the exact time frame and form of the future mobile communication systems, it is for sure that, these systems and innovative services, sooner or later, are going to make our life different, if not better.
* Those that make things happen.
* Those that watch things happen.
* Those who wonder “what happened??”
Everyone agrees that wireless industry and economy, and most of the time the synergy between the two are making things happen, let us at least try to be among those watching rather than those wondering.
Pickup any newspaper or general magazine today, we are sure of finding an article some where relating to mobile communication and most of the time if not in technical section we find it in the business section. This is because of the simple reason that it is virtually affecting everyone’s life in one way or other. Some times it becomes a major political issue and some times an economic issue of immense importance.
Let us try to understand what is this “Mobile Communication” all about : what is its past, what is its present and what is its future and how it is going to change in future, the way we communicate today. We will also try to see how far this wave of changing scenario-affecting India.
Mobile communication in its simplest sense means ‘Communication while in move’ i.e.; the technology which enables us to communicate with rest of the world while we are in move is called mobile communication and this is the reason why it must be wireless unlike conventional telephones.
When we talk of wireless technology, it involves all types and forms of wireless mode of communication, one of them and perhaps the most challenging and dynamic one is mobile communication. Under the vast umbrella of wireless communication, the technologies like point-to-point wireless link, point-to-multipoint link, cordless telephony etc. also comes. But these are not mobile communication although wireless for the reason that these technologies do not allow (or deal with) seamless movement of the user over a large area i.e.; a city or a state or a country.
We will focus mainly on mobile communication and try to understand how mobile communication is going to change the very concept of communication, as we understand today.
Let us have a feel of the mobile communication system . It consists of a mobile terminal (MT), which the user carries along with him; the base station (BS) which communicates with MTs via wireless medium and MTSO (mobile telephone switching office) which is responsible for setting up all connections. The area covered by a BS is called a Cell. As a user moves from one cell to other, the system “handsoff” the call to the new cell. Multiple cells are used in order to accommodate more number of users (by a concept known as ‘frequency reuse’) and also to minimize the battery consumption of MT. This gives a generic view of mobile communication system, but this has been modified and changed over the decades in order to accommodate more features in more and more efficient ways.
Mobile communication like all other systems has evolved through number of generations: First generation (1G) is the past, Second generation (2G) is the present, Third generation (3G) is the near future; Fourth generation (4G) is the future. Also 2.5G, is the latest. First generation system was an analog technology based on a concept called FDMA(Frequency division multiple access) where each user is given a frequency band to communicate. It started way back in early eighties and even today it is popular in some parts of the world. In U.S. it is adhering to a family of standards called AMPS( Advanced Mobile Phone Service), in Europe it is TACS and in Japan JTACS. This generation of mobile phones were meant only for voice communication. Because of the limitations of analog technology and with digital revolution , the second generation of mobile communication came in to existence in early nineties. GSM ( Global system for mobile communication) is a classic example of 2nd generation mobile communication and is expanding at a rate of 10,000 subscribers a day on date. GSM is based on a concept known as TDMA(Time division Multiple access) . In 2nd generation also it was restricted mainly to voice communication but low data rate services were introduced. SMS(Short Message Service) is an example of low data rate services and today we experience the massive growth of SMS application. This is one of the most popular services especially among the younger generations and in many places of the world the GSM system hangs due to excessive use of SMS on special days like 14th of Feb. With the increasing popularity of data services and internet boom, 2.5G was introduced which allows the access of internet through mobile phones using a technology called WAP( Wireless Access Protocol) up to a data rate of 15-70Kbps.
With the extreme popularity of internet , people got used( or addicted ) to it and started expecting of using internet and downloading huge MP3 files in seconds while moving at a speed of 200Km per hour. All these were not possible with 2G or 2.5G and that’s how 3G was thought of. 3G mobile system will support other than voice, video telephony , video games, multimedia, net-browsing, network games, email, downloading, all these while moving at a speed of 200Km/hr and at a very high data rate. 3G will allow a user to talk to some one at the same time download huge MP3 files. Above all these, some thing call ‘location based services’ will be possible, i.e.; using the 3G mobile phone, the user will be able to get all information regarding near by hotels, restaurants, places of visits etc. when he is walking through the streets of an unknown city surrounded by unknown faces. Also when a user will make an emergency call, his location will be automatically found out by police or hospitals so that he can be assisted immediately. All these and many more innovative services will be provided by 3G mobile communication system. 3G system is based on CDMA(Code division multiple access). The beginning of convergence of communication and computing is the central to the idea of 3G system. It is expected to be operational by 2003-2004 in some parts of the world. But a global standard for 3G was also not possible due to high profile lobbing of U.S. and Europe, this means that the user of 3G mobile phone may not be fortunate enough to use the same phone in all parts of the world and get access to these innovative and high end services.
There is no limit to human ambitions. We have already seen the range of killer applications those will be provided by 3G system, but concepts of 4G(the future generation of Mobile Communication System) has already started evolving, although 3G itself is expected 1-2 years down the line. The migrations from 1G to 2G and 2G to 3G are perhaps evolution but migration from 3G to 4G as many think, will be a revolution rather than evolution both from technological and user perspectives. 4G network today is only an evolving concept, there is no real definition of what 4G will be. The concept of convergence has already began with 3G , 4G will bring about convergence of communication, computing, broadcasting etc. Today a normal urban person is his daily life uses a phone(fixed or mobile), computer, TV, Music system, Radio, Video camera , digital dairy , door locking system etc. etc. . But today there is no linkage between them i.e.; for a user these all are different equipments and to be used independently and separately. The whole idea of 4G is to have automated and autonomous machine-to-machine interaction between all the above mentioned and all other equipments. Different equipments are used by people at different places e.g.; TV is used at home, high end computer at workplace and so on. In future the devices will interact among themselves as the user arrives at home for example, they will form a home area network. Similarly as the user moves to workplace , the devices will interact automatically among themselves and will form Office Area Network and in most cases without the knowledge or intervention of the user. As a person moves between environments, the personal profile and preferences will move with him i.e.; suppose a person moves to a hotel room , TV channel will be changed automatically as per that person’s preference which he watches at home and these will be possible without intervention of the user. Thus we can visualize 4G as two level of communication : Communication between MT and all equipments like TV etc. inside a room and the communication between MT and base station(i.e. with outside world) as in previous generations of systems. In future we can see an increasing trend of personal mobile assistants which will almost transparently do credit card payment, online shopping with very little inputs from the user. The heart of all these converged and automated environments are “embedded radio” and “pervasive computing”. Embedded radio conceptualises the presence of single chip radio embedded in all equipments like TV, Mobile, Digital camera etc. so that they can communicate among them selves. The concept of “pervasive computing” is being promoted by computer scientists for decades which essentially theorizes that computing devices will be embedded virtually in everything and all those computing devices will be able to share information. Internet has accelerated interest in pervasive computing ; wireless network which can support this vision are a natural but ambitious continuation of the same concept.
The communication between MT and base station (i.e.; MT and Outside world) will be OFDM(orthogonal frequency division multiplexing ) which is a more efficient access technology than CDMA. Also 4G strongly visualizes communication ‘any time, any where and any mode’ which was in some respect a major limitation of 3G system. Increase in data rates of the user is also one of the major requirements of future generation of mobile communication system and it is expected to give 1000 times more bandwidth than what is available to a mobile user today.
All these high end services will be possible only with the implementation and physical realization of technical buzzwords like ‘IPv6’,’Mobile IP’, ‘Software Radio’ , ‘orthogonal frequency demodulation’, ‘Hyper LAN’, ‘Bluetooth’ and many more. All these do not become a reality over night and at free of cost but with billions of dollars of investment and years of research. It is expected that 4G services will be available only by 2010-2015, although it seems a long way from now but already research programs has started to actualise these concepts. Now the obvious question comes, who requires such high end services and also whether all these are going to be a reality or just a hype? With the increasing popularity of data and multimedia services , it is expected that these services will actually be on high demand in future. As we all know “Necessity is the mother of invention” but some times it works even other way round i.e.; technical innovations are used to create new/hidden necessities and some may call it a luxury, which is a topic of big debate and depends on the socio-economic condition of the people of a particular place. But in the past we have seen many technical innovations did not really took a commercial shape because of economic reasons and one classic example of this is the IRIDIUM project which was a technical success but a perhaps a commercial blunder.
Let’s try to see in brief, the scenario of mobile communication in India. In India we can see an expansion of GSM ( the 2nd generation system) system. Although the penetration in India is much less compare to U.S. and neighbouring China , it is surely picking up at a very fast pace. In India the mobile subscriber penetration is 0.6%( out of 1000 people, 6 has a mobile phone). In the state of Assam it is 0.1 % and in rest of NE it is as low as 0.038% . This kind of low penetration is due to socio-economic reasons but with the deregulation of Telecom sector , the penetration is expected to go high. Also we can expect 3G services will become a reality even in India, sooner or later. 4G services may look bit too futuristic at this point of time not only in India but else where.
To conclude we can say that , technical problems of the futuristic mobile communication systems may be solvable but economic and business justification for such a network is more complex. At the core, the future systems and concepts requires a fundamental change of orientation for wireless network operators- away from providing discrete services which they control and towards being a provider of access for users in parallel with other networks. By definition, they will required to support standard protocols for connectivity, billing, content and applications. At this moment this may not be the case every where. Despite of all these , the future generations of mobile systems will play a very important role in years to come. The road ahead for mobile and wireless industry may seems to be confusing and changing market conditions will be the final decider , many are keeping their finger crossed and hoping for the best. In such a rapidly evolving environment, it is difficult to predict when 4G or pervasive computing will finally become widespread realities but by the same token they seem unlikely to simply vanish . The importance of future mobile communication systems like 4G, inspires debates and visionary thinking which are both important steps for wireless industry to move forward. Whatever may the exact time frame and form of the future mobile communication systems, it is for sure that, these systems and innovative services, sooner or later, are going to make our life different, if not better.
Mobile phone use and risk of cancer
Scientists from the institute of cancer research have today published results from the largest investigation to date into the relationship between mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma, a nervous system tumour that occurs close to where mobile phones are held to the head.
The study suggests there is no substantial risk of this tumour in the first 10 years after starting mobile phone use. However, an increased risk after longer term use could not be ruled out.
The study – published online today in the British Journal of Cancer – was conducted in the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which are countries where mobile phones were introduced particularly early. Researchers included the University of Leeds’ reader in paediatric epidemiology Professor Patricia McKinney.
Data were collected from 678 people with acoustic neuroma and 3,553 people who did not have acoustic neuroma ('controls'). Participants were asked in detail about their past mobile phone use (for instance length and frequency of calls, makes and models of phones used, and extent of hands-free use), and also about other factors that might affect their risk of acoustic neuroma.
Acoustic neuromas are benign tumours that grow in the nerve that connects the ear and inner ear to the brain. They often cause loss of hearing in the affected ear and inner ear and a loss of balance. However, acoustic neuromas are usually slow-growing and do not spread to other parts of the body.
The study found no relation between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the number of years for which mobile phones had been used, the time since first use, the total hours of use or the total number of calls, nor were there any relations separately for analogue or digital phone use. There was relatively little information, and the results did not give a clear interpretation, for the risk of tumours after use of a phone for 10 years or longer.
The senior investigator at the institute of cancer research, Professor Anthony Swerdlow, said: “There has been public concern about whether there is a link between brain cancer risk and use of mobile phones. The risk of acoustic neuroma is of particular interest in this context because of the proximity of the acoustic nerve to the handset. The results of our study suggest that there is no substantial risk in the first decade after starting use. Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology”.
Professor Peter Rigby, chief executive of the institute of cancer research said: “Mobile phones have only been used widely over the past decade so we won’t know the long term effects for many years. However, the results of this multi-country study with such a large number of participants is a great step forward in our understanding of the possible health effects of mobile phones.” The use of mobile phones for long periods may trigger mouth cancer, shows a study by researchers in Israel.
Previous studies had generated conflicting results. While some researchers had said they found a link between cancer and excess mobile phone use, a few scientists had rejected the claim.
In the new study, scientists looked at the lifestyles of 402 people with benign mouth tumours and 56 with malignant ones. They were compared to a control group of 1,266 people.
The study found that five years of frequent use increased the chances of developing a tumour in the mouth by around 50 percent compared with people who had never used one, reported the online edition of the Daily Mail.
Those who used mobiles the most were more likely than normal to develop parotid gland tumours, the scientists said.
The parotid is the largest of the salivary glands located in front of the ear. Long-term mobile phone users tended to develop tumours on the same side of the head as the phone was normally held, they said.
People who used mobile phones in rural areas, where the phone has to work harder to make contact with the nearest base station, were found to be at greater risk although the cause of the heightened risk was not established.
The study suggests there is no substantial risk of this tumour in the first 10 years after starting mobile phone use. However, an increased risk after longer term use could not be ruled out.
The study – published online today in the British Journal of Cancer – was conducted in the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which are countries where mobile phones were introduced particularly early. Researchers included the University of Leeds’ reader in paediatric epidemiology Professor Patricia McKinney.
Data were collected from 678 people with acoustic neuroma and 3,553 people who did not have acoustic neuroma ('controls'). Participants were asked in detail about their past mobile phone use (for instance length and frequency of calls, makes and models of phones used, and extent of hands-free use), and also about other factors that might affect their risk of acoustic neuroma.
Acoustic neuromas are benign tumours that grow in the nerve that connects the ear and inner ear to the brain. They often cause loss of hearing in the affected ear and inner ear and a loss of balance. However, acoustic neuromas are usually slow-growing and do not spread to other parts of the body.
The study found no relation between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the number of years for which mobile phones had been used, the time since first use, the total hours of use or the total number of calls, nor were there any relations separately for analogue or digital phone use. There was relatively little information, and the results did not give a clear interpretation, for the risk of tumours after use of a phone for 10 years or longer.
The senior investigator at the institute of cancer research, Professor Anthony Swerdlow, said: “There has been public concern about whether there is a link between brain cancer risk and use of mobile phones. The risk of acoustic neuroma is of particular interest in this context because of the proximity of the acoustic nerve to the handset. The results of our study suggest that there is no substantial risk in the first decade after starting use. Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology”.
Professor Peter Rigby, chief executive of the institute of cancer research said: “Mobile phones have only been used widely over the past decade so we won’t know the long term effects for many years. However, the results of this multi-country study with such a large number of participants is a great step forward in our understanding of the possible health effects of mobile phones.” The use of mobile phones for long periods may trigger mouth cancer, shows a study by researchers in Israel.
Previous studies had generated conflicting results. While some researchers had said they found a link between cancer and excess mobile phone use, a few scientists had rejected the claim.
In the new study, scientists looked at the lifestyles of 402 people with benign mouth tumours and 56 with malignant ones. They were compared to a control group of 1,266 people.
The study found that five years of frequent use increased the chances of developing a tumour in the mouth by around 50 percent compared with people who had never used one, reported the online edition of the Daily Mail.
Those who used mobiles the most were more likely than normal to develop parotid gland tumours, the scientists said.
The parotid is the largest of the salivary glands located in front of the ear. Long-term mobile phone users tended to develop tumours on the same side of the head as the phone was normally held, they said.
People who used mobile phones in rural areas, where the phone has to work harder to make contact with the nearest base station, were found to be at greater risk although the cause of the heightened risk was not established.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Prostate Cancer
Each year just in USA alone, about 40 000 men have their cancerous prostates surgically removed or radiated, often within just hours of the diagnosis. This may eliminate an immediate problem, BUT in most cases it will also result in reduced quality of life later.
There are risks connected with the surgery: bleeding and need for transfusion, injury to nearby tissues and nerves, blood clots in the legs that can travel to the lungs, wound infection.
There are usually some nasty side effects: Urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, infertility, bladder neck obstruction.
The same applies to radiation, may it be external or internal – in addition to the above side effects, there is the problem of hair loss, tissue damage, fatique and bowel problems.
These treatments are definitely not ideal – in 35% of patients there is a recurrence of cancer within 5 years, in 75% within 10 years…..
For the past 25 years, I have been studying, researching and applying alternative, non invasive therapies. I became interested in this area through my son, who was born with a rare disease.
I found that conventional medicine was not always the best answer, in some instances it actually made the situation worse. My searching really opened my eyes, but I was afraid to speak up, I thought nobody would believe me, so I just let things happen…
But, the world is slowly opening up, there seems to be more evidence about the positive results of alternative, natural therapies…
What YOU need NOW is the ability to…
* learn how to tap into your mind, how to alter your way of thinking in order to affect a positive outcome of your disease
* know the difference between various therapies, which ones are good and which ones are not so good
* how to find specific natural therapies to increase you energy and vitality
* learn about pain relief strategies, how to live your life and not let the disease stop you in your tracks
So, all this research got me thinking… If I’m this frustrated, not being able to readily find this information anywhere else, after spending 25 years and hundreds of hours of searching, how frustrated are YOU?!
The average person, suffering from prostate cancer, does not want to and maybe does not feel like (after having energy draining treatments!) spending hours of trying to find out about some alternative solutions!!
Therefore, I have decided to put my findings and my knowledge to some good use.
So, I want to tell you about this really powerful, natural manual, that is more comprehensive than any other natural resource on this subject.
There are risks connected with the surgery: bleeding and need for transfusion, injury to nearby tissues and nerves, blood clots in the legs that can travel to the lungs, wound infection.
There are usually some nasty side effects: Urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, infertility, bladder neck obstruction.
The same applies to radiation, may it be external or internal – in addition to the above side effects, there is the problem of hair loss, tissue damage, fatique and bowel problems.
These treatments are definitely not ideal – in 35% of patients there is a recurrence of cancer within 5 years, in 75% within 10 years…..
For the past 25 years, I have been studying, researching and applying alternative, non invasive therapies. I became interested in this area through my son, who was born with a rare disease.
I found that conventional medicine was not always the best answer, in some instances it actually made the situation worse. My searching really opened my eyes, but I was afraid to speak up, I thought nobody would believe me, so I just let things happen…
But, the world is slowly opening up, there seems to be more evidence about the positive results of alternative, natural therapies…
What YOU need NOW is the ability to…
* learn how to tap into your mind, how to alter your way of thinking in order to affect a positive outcome of your disease
* know the difference between various therapies, which ones are good and which ones are not so good
* how to find specific natural therapies to increase you energy and vitality
* learn about pain relief strategies, how to live your life and not let the disease stop you in your tracks
So, all this research got me thinking… If I’m this frustrated, not being able to readily find this information anywhere else, after spending 25 years and hundreds of hours of searching, how frustrated are YOU?!
The average person, suffering from prostate cancer, does not want to and maybe does not feel like (after having energy draining treatments!) spending hours of trying to find out about some alternative solutions!!
Therefore, I have decided to put my findings and my knowledge to some good use.
So, I want to tell you about this really powerful, natural manual, that is more comprehensive than any other natural resource on this subject.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Experts Revive Debate Over Cellphones and Cancer
Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low. Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use.
“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive view.”
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.
“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.
“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low. Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use.
“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive view.”
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.
“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.
“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”
What effects do mobile phones have on people's health?
During recent years, the use of mobile phones has increased substantially and has been paralleled by a growing concern about the effects on health attributed to exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by them and their base stations. Demonstrating that radiation causes adverse effects on health would signal a widespread public health problem.
Findings
Mobile phones have been in extensive use for a relatively short period of time, and their technology has progressively changed, from analogue to digital systems. Mobile phones and base stations emit radio frequency or microwave radiation. Exposure to such a radiation could affect health directly. The use of mobile phones also results in indirect effects, such as car accidents and interference with health equipment.
Experimental research on the effects of radio-frequency radiation is very broad and heterogeneous. It includes both studies of cell cultures and tissues (in vitro) and of laboratory animals (in vivo), as well as of people (volunteers). On one hand, these studies focus on functional changes in the brain and the resulting effects on cognition, and (to some extent) well-being – that is, the influence of exposure to radiation on the head. On the other hand, these studies focus on the possibility of a relationship between mobile phone use and carcinogenic processes, reproduction and development, the cardiovascular system and longevity – that is, exposure of the whole body. These studies found very small and reversible biological and physiological effects that do not necessary lead to diseases or injuries. Also, the research findings on the changes at the molecular level associated with the development of cancer are inconsistent and contradictory.
Epidemiological studies in general populations, such as communities, concentrate on a possible causal relationship between mobile phone use and the occurrence of brain tumours, acoustic neuromas, tumours of the salivary glands, and leukaemia and lymphomas. Although weak and inconclusive, most of the evidence available does not suggest that there are adverse effects on health attributable to long-term exposure to radio-frequency and microwave radiation from mobile phones. However, recent studies have reported an increased risk of acoustic neuroma and some brain tumours in people who use an analogue mobile phone for more than 10 years. Also, no data is available on the reproduction of these effects when digital mobile phones are used. Finally, there is good evidence that the use of mobile phones while driving translates into a substantially increased risk of an accidental collision.
Policy considerations
For the majority of tumours studied so far, a long latency period might exist, and the finding of any link to the use of mobile phones is complex. Consequently, most of the published research cannot elucidate the risk of long-term effects. If there is a risk, the current evidence suggests it is small.
Since there are still gaps in knowledge, continued research and better health risk analyses are needed. Moreover, without scientifically recognized adverse effects on health, it is not possible to produce evidence-based recommendations.
Therefore, a precautionary approach to the use of this communication technology should be adopted until more scientific evidence on its effects on health becomes available. Such an approach includes restricting exposure (according to existing guidelines and the European Union (EU) Directive) and providing the public with information and options.
Findings
Mobile phones have been in extensive use for a relatively short period of time, and their technology has progressively changed, from analogue to digital systems. Mobile phones and base stations emit radio frequency or microwave radiation. Exposure to such a radiation could affect health directly. The use of mobile phones also results in indirect effects, such as car accidents and interference with health equipment.
Experimental research on the effects of radio-frequency radiation is very broad and heterogeneous. It includes both studies of cell cultures and tissues (in vitro) and of laboratory animals (in vivo), as well as of people (volunteers). On one hand, these studies focus on functional changes in the brain and the resulting effects on cognition, and (to some extent) well-being – that is, the influence of exposure to radiation on the head. On the other hand, these studies focus on the possibility of a relationship between mobile phone use and carcinogenic processes, reproduction and development, the cardiovascular system and longevity – that is, exposure of the whole body. These studies found very small and reversible biological and physiological effects that do not necessary lead to diseases or injuries. Also, the research findings on the changes at the molecular level associated with the development of cancer are inconsistent and contradictory.
Epidemiological studies in general populations, such as communities, concentrate on a possible causal relationship between mobile phone use and the occurrence of brain tumours, acoustic neuromas, tumours of the salivary glands, and leukaemia and lymphomas. Although weak and inconclusive, most of the evidence available does not suggest that there are adverse effects on health attributable to long-term exposure to radio-frequency and microwave radiation from mobile phones. However, recent studies have reported an increased risk of acoustic neuroma and some brain tumours in people who use an analogue mobile phone for more than 10 years. Also, no data is available on the reproduction of these effects when digital mobile phones are used. Finally, there is good evidence that the use of mobile phones while driving translates into a substantially increased risk of an accidental collision.
Policy considerations
For the majority of tumours studied so far, a long latency period might exist, and the finding of any link to the use of mobile phones is complex. Consequently, most of the published research cannot elucidate the risk of long-term effects. If there is a risk, the current evidence suggests it is small.
Since there are still gaps in knowledge, continued research and better health risk analyses are needed. Moreover, without scientifically recognized adverse effects on health, it is not possible to produce evidence-based recommendations.
Therefore, a precautionary approach to the use of this communication technology should be adopted until more scientific evidence on its effects on health becomes available. Such an approach includes restricting exposure (according to existing guidelines and the European Union (EU) Directive) and providing the public with information and options.
Health Effects of Mobile Phones: Recent Scientific and Policy Developments
Abstract
This talk will review recent scientific evidence related to possible links between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, and recent regulatory developments related to human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.
Introduction
The issue of possible health effects of mobile telephones and mobile telephone base stations is very much alive in the public’s mind. Motivated by health concerns, a new wave of research has been undertaken in the United States and elsewhere, searching for possible links between cell phone radiation and health problems, including cancer. Also motivated by citizens’ health concerns, several European countries have instituted new policies for siting of mobile base stations, based on the precautionary principle.
Both subjects of this talk – health effects of RF energy and regulation of RF exposure, are broad and contentious. For nonspecialists, good sources of further information on the scientific issues are found in references 1-3, and from a different perspective in Ref. 4.
Cell Phones and Brain Cancer: Emerging Evidence
In the public’s mind, the most distressing issue is the possible link between mobile telephones with brain cancer. The issue arose with the a lawsuit filed in a US court in mid-1992 by David Reynard, alleging that the use of a cell phone caused his wife's fatal brain cancer.
The difficulty in interpreting such reports is that brain cancer occurs naturally in the human population (with an incidence of about 6 per 100,000 people per year). Thus, many users of mobile phones would develop the disease even if there were no connection between the phones and the disease. Reynard’s lawsuit, and several other American lawsuits with similar claims, were dismissed by the courts for lack of valid scientific evidence. Nevertheless, they raised questions for which no satisfactory answers existed at the time they were filed.
In response to public fears that these suits and their attendant publicity have raised, a wave of research was begun, both within and outside of the US, and funded both by industry and government. A recent review of the issue (presented at a WHO sponsored conference in Erice, Sicily in November 1999) identified more than 200 ongoing and recently completed studies related to possible health hazards of RF energy, including a dozen epidemiology studies, more than 60 cancer-related animal studies, and 75 cellular studies. Additional studies involve noncancer endpoints, including behavioral effects, and safety issues such as interference of cell phones with medical devices and driving performance.
Epidemiology Studies. Several major large scale epidemiology studies were undertaken shortly after the Reynard lawsuit created the issue, and their results have recently been reported.
In 1996, in the first follow-up study to the brain cancer allegations, Rothman et al. reported a study that reviewed health records of more than 250,000 mobile phone users. The investigators found no difference in mortality between the users of hand-held portable phones (where the antenna is placed close to the head) and mobile cellular phones (where the antenna is mounted on the vehicle). In a later followup study, published in November 1999, the same group examined the causes of death among nearly 300,000 mobile phone users in several US cities. The study found no increase in death rates, for any cause of death, that correlated with use of mobile telephones (minutes of daily use of length of service) – except for motor vehicle collisions.
Most recently, in a study published in March 2000, Morgan et al. reported a study of nearly 200,000 Motorola employees representing 2.7 million person-years of possible exposure between 1976 and 1996. The investigators concluded that their findings "do not support an association between occupational RF exposure and brain cancers or lymphoma/leukemia."
Other epidemiology studies on cell phone users have been mostly, or entirely, negative. In a study that received extensive press coverage even before it was published in 1999 Hardell and colleagues assessed mobile phone use in 209 Swedish brain tumor patients in comparison to 425 healthy controls. The study was negative in virtually all respects. There was no increased incidence of brain tumors in the mobile phone users, either in analog or digital phone users, and no tendency towards increased brain tumor incidence with increased duration of use (either years of use or hours of use per year). One aspect of the study received wide coverage in the news -- users of mobile phones who had developed certain types of brain tumors were more likely to get them on the side of their heads where they said they had used the phones. But this correlation was not statistically significant (and may have been a statistical artifact). Recall bias – a greater tendency of subjects with brain tumors to report using their telephones on the side of their heads with the tumor – may have been a factor also.
These studies, while reassuring, have important limitations. They have limited statistical power, i.e. because of their finite size they are unable to detect small increases in risk. More importantly, brain cancer takes years to decades to develop, and these studies can easily overlook a risk that might only become apparent after decades of use of cell phones.
Animal Studies
To supplement epidemiology studies, health agencies look to specialized animal studies when investigating possible carcinogens. Several animal studies have been reported, whose designs are appropriate for identifying brain cancinogenesis or brain tumor promoting effects of RF energy – and they too are unsupportive of such links. (Table).
In a Motorola-funded study designed specifically to look for brain cancer, Adey and colleagues reported in a 1999 paper that pulse-modulated 837 MHz RF energy (such as emitted by some digital cell phones) does not cause or promote brain cancer in rats. At a meeting in 1997 (but not so far in a published paper) Adey reported a lack of initiation or promotion from continuous wave RF (such as emitted by analog cell phones); and in a 1999 meeting report, Zook reported confirmation of all four observations. Other studies in the Table were not focused on brain cancer, but they evaluated the animals for this disease and would have observed a pronounced increase in this disease had one occurred.
In short, both epidemiology and animal studies undertaken in the aftermath of the Reynard lawsuit are strongly unsupportive of links between use of mobile phones and brain cancer. This does not prove that mobile phones are "safe" (since the studies could have overlooked a small risk or one that only becomes apparent after many years of use of the telephones). Nevertheless, the epidemiology studies were large and seemingly well designed and well conducted, and the animal studies were appropriately designed to identify possible carcinogenic or tumor promotion effects of RF fields. Many other studies are presently underway and will be reported in due time.
Resolution of the Scientific Issues
A variety of government and private expert groups are presently evaluating the evidence, and will issue their reports in due course. An expert committee in the United Kingdom is scheduled to release a report in May 2000, and a formal cancer risk assessment will be conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for RF fields in 2003.
An indication of the probable nature of their findings is provided by a statement issued in February 2000 by the [US] Food and Drug Administration: "there is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a [health] risk to millions of users."
This statement – "no proof of danger, no proof of safety" -- reflects the complexity of risk assessment, particularly regarding complex issues such as cancer. The animal and epidemiology studies conducted so far certainly do not provide adequate basis to conclude that a hazard exists from RF energy from mobile phones or base stations under real-world exposure condition.
It also reflects the reluctance of health agencies to certify any technology as "safe". "Safety", if considered to be the absence of risk, cannot be proven scientifically in any event. Instead, health agencies focus instead on weighing evidence for hazards. The amount of evidence they require, and how it is weighed, depends on complex legal and regulatory constraints, not on the ability to attain scientific certainty. For example, IARC would almost certainly want more data, including the results of multiple animal and epidemiology studies, before evaluating evidence relating to mobile telephones and cancer. Even with such data, IARC virtually never pronounces an agent to be a "noncarcinogen", and therefore is unlikely to do so with RF energy.
Another factor in the issue is the complexity of the microwave bioeffects literature, which is murky and inconsistent in many places. Scientists have been looking for health and safety problems with RF energy since World War II, and thousands of studies are in the primary scientific literature. Clearly identified hazards are associated with excessive tissue heating, and international exposure guidelines offer adequate protection against them. The few reported injuries from RF energy involve exposure levels far above regulatory limits, and typically are related to accidents involving high-powered sources.
However, the scientific literature also contains reports of biological effects of RF energy at exposure levels below current exposure guidelines. Many of these effects have unclear or no relation to health. Often the "effects" are small (close to the noise level in the studies), were reported only in preliminary studies, do not vary in any predictable way with exposure level, or cannot be independently confirmed by other scientists. The literature of the former Soviet Union in particular has many reports of effects of RF energy, sometimes at very low exposure levels, which are frequently lacking important information needed to judge their reliability, or are only available to Western scientists in the form of brief abstracts. Interpreting these diverse reports has been controversial among scientists and in the public arena for many years.
Moreover, the scientific literature also contains many allegations of human health problems associated RF exposure. Notable among these are many reports from the former Soviet Union of "microwave sickness" in workers in factories making RF equipment. This sickness, which was characterized by nonspecific symptoms such as headache and neurasthenia, is not recognized by Western medicine. (Its treatment often consisted of prescribed rest at a spa, which may have contributed to its prevalence.) Indeed, the studies reporting the disease are too briefly reported to be independently evaluated, or have serious methodological problems. Nevertheless, these (and other Russian and Eastern European) studies raise the issue of health effects of RF energy, and create public fears even as they fail to persuade most Western scientists of the existence of a problem.
In short, scientific questions about health effects of RF energy at low exposure levels have been longstanding and difficult to resolve. Unless major new scientific developments occur, the present situation is likely to continue, with health agencies unwilling to either certify low-level (below international guidelines) exposure to RF energy as safe or pronounce it dangerous. Given the many (several thousand) bioeffects studies involving RF energy, the probability of astonishing new revelations seems remote. There are, however, many open questions that need to be addressed by further research.
There is also the need for careful evaluation of the scientific data, as well as harmonization of international exposure standards, which show wide variations around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) is taking a leading role in these important tasks.
Social Dimensions
"Safety" has strong social (including ethical, legal, and economic) and scientific components, and cannot be understood properly by considering scientific studies alone. People’s responses to risk depend very much on factors such as the nature of the adverse outcome, and whether the risk is voluntary or not.
Thus, there are very real differences between handsets and base stations both in the level of RF exposure and in the question of imposed vs. voluntary risk. The levels of RF exposure from wireless base stations are far lower than those from handsets, yet the former have triggered widespread public outcries while the latter have not. To a large extent, this is because of the involuntary nature of the exposure to people living near base stations, and the lack of perceived value of the base stations to individuals. People can choose to use wireless handsets or not – and very often do, since they find them to be very useful.
The issue of imposed risk is extremely important because it brings into play the risk communication literature especially Bischoff, Covello, Sandman, Chess, Lee, Kemp, Weideman etc. Good risk communication becomes an imperative with base station siting.
The Precautionary Principle and Mobile Telephone Base Stations
A recent, and very important change, has occurred in European regulations concerning RF exposure. In response to public concerns about possible health effects of mobile base stations, several European countries (Slovenia, Italy, and most recently Switzerland) have instituted strict limits for RF exposure from transmitters, based on the precautionary principle. The exposure limits are far below international exposure guidelines such as those of ICNIRP; the Swiss limit is below that of the former Soviet Union and its former Eastern European allies while the Italian and Slovene limits are similar to it. Also, as a precautionary response, various countries are considering proposals to regulate the siting of mobile telephone base stations near schools, hospitals, or other "sensitive" locations.
This precautionary approach has widespread popular support. However, from the point of view of risk management (and perhaps also from a legal perspective) the precautionary approach is problematic. The precautionary principle is elusive in meaning, and lawyers and policymakers disagree about just what it entails. Different statements of it in various treaties and nontreaty declarations can be used to support a wide range of positions, with the "hardest" position being to require that cellular providers offer "proof of harmlessness" of RF energy before building out systems. A recent EU communication (February 2000) on the precautionary principle outlines a more moderate approach, which requires a careful risk assessment, including a cost benefit analysis, before instituting precautionary policies. (A World Health Organization background paper on the precautionary principle as related to electromagnetic field guidelines is on the World Wide Web at
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm).
One difficulty in applying cautionary policies in a consistent way to mobile communications is the fact that modern society has many sources of RF energy, many operating at far higher levels than mobile base stations, widely scattered throughout the landscape. Indeed, some proposals aimed at cellular base stations may have far greater impact on police/fire/emergency communications systems and broadcast facilities than on the base stations. A lack of consistency in regulating different sources of RF energy might make these precautionary approaches vulnerable to legal challenge.
Implications for Industry
Meanwhile, industry has to realize that it is facing a difficult problem in risk perception and risk communication, whatever the actual risks or nonrisks may be with wireless communications.
This has two important implications for industry. First, these are human problems, from which industry cannot count on science to bail them out. In our opinion, one contributing factor in the public outcry about wireless base stations has been insensitive practices of industry in siting them. A base station located within sight of a school, or whose antennas appear to be aimed directly at buildings where people live, is bound to raise a public outcry. Such fears have led directly to demands for precautionary approaches in siting these facilities. Wireless providers should use whatever flexibility they have in siting base stations to avoid such situations.
Second, industry has to realize that the conclusions that people draw about risk depend very strongly on the way that information is presented to them. Subtle differences in a message or in the manner of its delivery can make a large difference in its credibility. In our opinion, industry has made the public issue more intense by insensitive or poorly considered efforts at risk communication. Engineers, whatever their technical expertise may be, are not necessarily adept at risk communication. Companies should not use radiofrequency engineers to communicate about risks (or nonrisks) of RF energy with the public – not, at least, without careful instruction in risk communication.
By the same token, government and expert panels need to improve the precision of many of their statements about the issue. It is neither helpful nor correct to say that "we do not know enough to conclude that RF energy is safe". (One can never prove the negative with any amount of evidence.) Rather, scientists need to give the public a sensible assessment of safety and risk. Other difficult issues such as genetically modified foods and "mad cow disease" pose similar challenges in risk communication and management, and it would be very good to get the risk communication right in the mobile phone issue and then use it as a model for risk communication in other issues.
Finally, the difficulties in providing a clear-cut scientific resolution to the health issue, together with the widespread and deeply held public health concerns, points to the need for creative solutions to address public fears of RF energy. This will require joint efforts by all stakeholders, including industry, government, and the public.
This talk will review recent scientific evidence related to possible links between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, and recent regulatory developments related to human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.
Introduction
The issue of possible health effects of mobile telephones and mobile telephone base stations is very much alive in the public’s mind. Motivated by health concerns, a new wave of research has been undertaken in the United States and elsewhere, searching for possible links between cell phone radiation and health problems, including cancer. Also motivated by citizens’ health concerns, several European countries have instituted new policies for siting of mobile base stations, based on the precautionary principle.
Both subjects of this talk – health effects of RF energy and regulation of RF exposure, are broad and contentious. For nonspecialists, good sources of further information on the scientific issues are found in references 1-3, and from a different perspective in Ref. 4.
Cell Phones and Brain Cancer: Emerging Evidence
In the public’s mind, the most distressing issue is the possible link between mobile telephones with brain cancer. The issue arose with the a lawsuit filed in a US court in mid-1992 by David Reynard, alleging that the use of a cell phone caused his wife's fatal brain cancer.
The difficulty in interpreting such reports is that brain cancer occurs naturally in the human population (with an incidence of about 6 per 100,000 people per year). Thus, many users of mobile phones would develop the disease even if there were no connection between the phones and the disease. Reynard’s lawsuit, and several other American lawsuits with similar claims, were dismissed by the courts for lack of valid scientific evidence. Nevertheless, they raised questions for which no satisfactory answers existed at the time they were filed.
In response to public fears that these suits and their attendant publicity have raised, a wave of research was begun, both within and outside of the US, and funded both by industry and government. A recent review of the issue (presented at a WHO sponsored conference in Erice, Sicily in November 1999) identified more than 200 ongoing and recently completed studies related to possible health hazards of RF energy, including a dozen epidemiology studies, more than 60 cancer-related animal studies, and 75 cellular studies. Additional studies involve noncancer endpoints, including behavioral effects, and safety issues such as interference of cell phones with medical devices and driving performance.
Epidemiology Studies. Several major large scale epidemiology studies were undertaken shortly after the Reynard lawsuit created the issue, and their results have recently been reported.
In 1996, in the first follow-up study to the brain cancer allegations, Rothman et al. reported a study that reviewed health records of more than 250,000 mobile phone users. The investigators found no difference in mortality between the users of hand-held portable phones (where the antenna is placed close to the head) and mobile cellular phones (where the antenna is mounted on the vehicle). In a later followup study, published in November 1999, the same group examined the causes of death among nearly 300,000 mobile phone users in several US cities. The study found no increase in death rates, for any cause of death, that correlated with use of mobile telephones (minutes of daily use of length of service) – except for motor vehicle collisions.
Most recently, in a study published in March 2000, Morgan et al. reported a study of nearly 200,000 Motorola employees representing 2.7 million person-years of possible exposure between 1976 and 1996. The investigators concluded that their findings "do not support an association between occupational RF exposure and brain cancers or lymphoma/leukemia."
Other epidemiology studies on cell phone users have been mostly, or entirely, negative. In a study that received extensive press coverage even before it was published in 1999 Hardell and colleagues assessed mobile phone use in 209 Swedish brain tumor patients in comparison to 425 healthy controls. The study was negative in virtually all respects. There was no increased incidence of brain tumors in the mobile phone users, either in analog or digital phone users, and no tendency towards increased brain tumor incidence with increased duration of use (either years of use or hours of use per year). One aspect of the study received wide coverage in the news -- users of mobile phones who had developed certain types of brain tumors were more likely to get them on the side of their heads where they said they had used the phones. But this correlation was not statistically significant (and may have been a statistical artifact). Recall bias – a greater tendency of subjects with brain tumors to report using their telephones on the side of their heads with the tumor – may have been a factor also.
These studies, while reassuring, have important limitations. They have limited statistical power, i.e. because of their finite size they are unable to detect small increases in risk. More importantly, brain cancer takes years to decades to develop, and these studies can easily overlook a risk that might only become apparent after decades of use of cell phones.
Animal Studies
To supplement epidemiology studies, health agencies look to specialized animal studies when investigating possible carcinogens. Several animal studies have been reported, whose designs are appropriate for identifying brain cancinogenesis or brain tumor promoting effects of RF energy – and they too are unsupportive of such links. (Table).
In a Motorola-funded study designed specifically to look for brain cancer, Adey and colleagues reported in a 1999 paper that pulse-modulated 837 MHz RF energy (such as emitted by some digital cell phones) does not cause or promote brain cancer in rats. At a meeting in 1997 (but not so far in a published paper) Adey reported a lack of initiation or promotion from continuous wave RF (such as emitted by analog cell phones); and in a 1999 meeting report, Zook reported confirmation of all four observations. Other studies in the Table were not focused on brain cancer, but they evaluated the animals for this disease and would have observed a pronounced increase in this disease had one occurred.
In short, both epidemiology and animal studies undertaken in the aftermath of the Reynard lawsuit are strongly unsupportive of links between use of mobile phones and brain cancer. This does not prove that mobile phones are "safe" (since the studies could have overlooked a small risk or one that only becomes apparent after many years of use of the telephones). Nevertheless, the epidemiology studies were large and seemingly well designed and well conducted, and the animal studies were appropriately designed to identify possible carcinogenic or tumor promotion effects of RF fields. Many other studies are presently underway and will be reported in due time.
Resolution of the Scientific Issues
A variety of government and private expert groups are presently evaluating the evidence, and will issue their reports in due course. An expert committee in the United Kingdom is scheduled to release a report in May 2000, and a formal cancer risk assessment will be conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for RF fields in 2003.
An indication of the probable nature of their findings is provided by a statement issued in February 2000 by the [US] Food and Drug Administration: "there is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a [health] risk to millions of users."
This statement – "no proof of danger, no proof of safety" -- reflects the complexity of risk assessment, particularly regarding complex issues such as cancer. The animal and epidemiology studies conducted so far certainly do not provide adequate basis to conclude that a hazard exists from RF energy from mobile phones or base stations under real-world exposure condition.
It also reflects the reluctance of health agencies to certify any technology as "safe". "Safety", if considered to be the absence of risk, cannot be proven scientifically in any event. Instead, health agencies focus instead on weighing evidence for hazards. The amount of evidence they require, and how it is weighed, depends on complex legal and regulatory constraints, not on the ability to attain scientific certainty. For example, IARC would almost certainly want more data, including the results of multiple animal and epidemiology studies, before evaluating evidence relating to mobile telephones and cancer. Even with such data, IARC virtually never pronounces an agent to be a "noncarcinogen", and therefore is unlikely to do so with RF energy.
Another factor in the issue is the complexity of the microwave bioeffects literature, which is murky and inconsistent in many places. Scientists have been looking for health and safety problems with RF energy since World War II, and thousands of studies are in the primary scientific literature. Clearly identified hazards are associated with excessive tissue heating, and international exposure guidelines offer adequate protection against them. The few reported injuries from RF energy involve exposure levels far above regulatory limits, and typically are related to accidents involving high-powered sources.
However, the scientific literature also contains reports of biological effects of RF energy at exposure levels below current exposure guidelines. Many of these effects have unclear or no relation to health. Often the "effects" are small (close to the noise level in the studies), were reported only in preliminary studies, do not vary in any predictable way with exposure level, or cannot be independently confirmed by other scientists. The literature of the former Soviet Union in particular has many reports of effects of RF energy, sometimes at very low exposure levels, which are frequently lacking important information needed to judge their reliability, or are only available to Western scientists in the form of brief abstracts. Interpreting these diverse reports has been controversial among scientists and in the public arena for many years.
Moreover, the scientific literature also contains many allegations of human health problems associated RF exposure. Notable among these are many reports from the former Soviet Union of "microwave sickness" in workers in factories making RF equipment. This sickness, which was characterized by nonspecific symptoms such as headache and neurasthenia, is not recognized by Western medicine. (Its treatment often consisted of prescribed rest at a spa, which may have contributed to its prevalence.) Indeed, the studies reporting the disease are too briefly reported to be independently evaluated, or have serious methodological problems. Nevertheless, these (and other Russian and Eastern European) studies raise the issue of health effects of RF energy, and create public fears even as they fail to persuade most Western scientists of the existence of a problem.
In short, scientific questions about health effects of RF energy at low exposure levels have been longstanding and difficult to resolve. Unless major new scientific developments occur, the present situation is likely to continue, with health agencies unwilling to either certify low-level (below international guidelines) exposure to RF energy as safe or pronounce it dangerous. Given the many (several thousand) bioeffects studies involving RF energy, the probability of astonishing new revelations seems remote. There are, however, many open questions that need to be addressed by further research.
There is also the need for careful evaluation of the scientific data, as well as harmonization of international exposure standards, which show wide variations around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) is taking a leading role in these important tasks.
Social Dimensions
"Safety" has strong social (including ethical, legal, and economic) and scientific components, and cannot be understood properly by considering scientific studies alone. People’s responses to risk depend very much on factors such as the nature of the adverse outcome, and whether the risk is voluntary or not.
Thus, there are very real differences between handsets and base stations both in the level of RF exposure and in the question of imposed vs. voluntary risk. The levels of RF exposure from wireless base stations are far lower than those from handsets, yet the former have triggered widespread public outcries while the latter have not. To a large extent, this is because of the involuntary nature of the exposure to people living near base stations, and the lack of perceived value of the base stations to individuals. People can choose to use wireless handsets or not – and very often do, since they find them to be very useful.
The issue of imposed risk is extremely important because it brings into play the risk communication literature especially Bischoff, Covello, Sandman, Chess, Lee, Kemp, Weideman etc. Good risk communication becomes an imperative with base station siting.
The Precautionary Principle and Mobile Telephone Base Stations
A recent, and very important change, has occurred in European regulations concerning RF exposure. In response to public concerns about possible health effects of mobile base stations, several European countries (Slovenia, Italy, and most recently Switzerland) have instituted strict limits for RF exposure from transmitters, based on the precautionary principle. The exposure limits are far below international exposure guidelines such as those of ICNIRP; the Swiss limit is below that of the former Soviet Union and its former Eastern European allies while the Italian and Slovene limits are similar to it. Also, as a precautionary response, various countries are considering proposals to regulate the siting of mobile telephone base stations near schools, hospitals, or other "sensitive" locations.
This precautionary approach has widespread popular support. However, from the point of view of risk management (and perhaps also from a legal perspective) the precautionary approach is problematic. The precautionary principle is elusive in meaning, and lawyers and policymakers disagree about just what it entails. Different statements of it in various treaties and nontreaty declarations can be used to support a wide range of positions, with the "hardest" position being to require that cellular providers offer "proof of harmlessness" of RF energy before building out systems. A recent EU communication (February 2000) on the precautionary principle outlines a more moderate approach, which requires a careful risk assessment, including a cost benefit analysis, before instituting precautionary policies. (A World Health Organization background paper on the precautionary principle as related to electromagnetic field guidelines is on the World Wide Web at
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm).
One difficulty in applying cautionary policies in a consistent way to mobile communications is the fact that modern society has many sources of RF energy, many operating at far higher levels than mobile base stations, widely scattered throughout the landscape. Indeed, some proposals aimed at cellular base stations may have far greater impact on police/fire/emergency communications systems and broadcast facilities than on the base stations. A lack of consistency in regulating different sources of RF energy might make these precautionary approaches vulnerable to legal challenge.
Implications for Industry
Meanwhile, industry has to realize that it is facing a difficult problem in risk perception and risk communication, whatever the actual risks or nonrisks may be with wireless communications.
This has two important implications for industry. First, these are human problems, from which industry cannot count on science to bail them out. In our opinion, one contributing factor in the public outcry about wireless base stations has been insensitive practices of industry in siting them. A base station located within sight of a school, or whose antennas appear to be aimed directly at buildings where people live, is bound to raise a public outcry. Such fears have led directly to demands for precautionary approaches in siting these facilities. Wireless providers should use whatever flexibility they have in siting base stations to avoid such situations.
Second, industry has to realize that the conclusions that people draw about risk depend very strongly on the way that information is presented to them. Subtle differences in a message or in the manner of its delivery can make a large difference in its credibility. In our opinion, industry has made the public issue more intense by insensitive or poorly considered efforts at risk communication. Engineers, whatever their technical expertise may be, are not necessarily adept at risk communication. Companies should not use radiofrequency engineers to communicate about risks (or nonrisks) of RF energy with the public – not, at least, without careful instruction in risk communication.
By the same token, government and expert panels need to improve the precision of many of their statements about the issue. It is neither helpful nor correct to say that "we do not know enough to conclude that RF energy is safe". (One can never prove the negative with any amount of evidence.) Rather, scientists need to give the public a sensible assessment of safety and risk. Other difficult issues such as genetically modified foods and "mad cow disease" pose similar challenges in risk communication and management, and it would be very good to get the risk communication right in the mobile phone issue and then use it as a model for risk communication in other issues.
Finally, the difficulties in providing a clear-cut scientific resolution to the health issue, together with the widespread and deeply held public health concerns, points to the need for creative solutions to address public fears of RF energy. This will require joint efforts by all stakeholders, including industry, government, and the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
