Mobile phone radiation and health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony

Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world (as of August 2005, there were more than 2 billion users worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range, and some[1] believe this may be harmful to human health. These concerns have induced a large body of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals and in humans). Concerns about effects on health have also been raised regarding other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks.

The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that health effects (e.g. headaches) are very unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,[2][3] and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in October 2009.[4]

However, some national radiation advisory authorities[5] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens.


[edit] Overall health risks

Many scientific studies have investigated possible health effects of mobile phone radiations. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. The most recent assessment was published in 2007 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). It concludes from the available research that no significant health effect has been demonstrated from mobile phone radiation at normal exposure levels:

  • Normal exposure to mobile phone radiation cannot cause headaches or dizziness, nor can it cause brain cancers, neurological effects or reproductive effects.
  • A few inconclusive studies suggest that it may cause a benign tumour of the auditory nerve.
  • However, more studies concerning potential health effects on children are needed.[6]

[edit] Health hazards of handsets

[edit] Radiation absorption

Calculated specific absorbed radiation (SAR) distribution in an anatomical model of head next to a 125 mW dipole antenna. Peak SAR is 9.5 W/kg averaged over a 1 mg cube. (USAF/AFRL).

Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset, can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts. Other digital mobile technologies, such as CDMA2000 and D-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt. The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard it is following and by the regulatory agencies in each country. In most systems the cellphone and the base station check reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate for different situations such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles. The rate at which radiation is absorbed by the human body is measured by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the USA, the FCC has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used comparisons between different measurements can not be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves. SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.[7]

[edit] Non-thermal effects

The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate. [8]

Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example[9], has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.

[edit] Blood-brain barrier effects

Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Perrson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of albumin into the brain via a permeated blood-brain barrier.[10][11] Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cell [12] or animal studies.[13]

[edit] Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling sensations in the skin of the head and extremities, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot separate the symptoms from nocebo effects.[14]

[edit] Genotoxic effects

Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[15] Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.[16] Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.[17]

In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Wengong Lai and Mohinder Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.[18] Later, in December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[19] Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.[20]

[edit] Mobile phones and cancer

In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) consider this report as inconclusive.[22]

In order to investigate the risk of cancer for the mobile phone user, a cooperative project between 13 countries has been launched called INTERPHONE. The idea is that cancers need time to develop so only studies over 10 years are of interest.[23]

The following studies of long time exposure have been published:

  • A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years and found no evidence to support a link.[21]
  • A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[24]
  • A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[25]
  • A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."[26]
  • A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."[27]

Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:

  • A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[28]
  • The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radiofrequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR. [29]

In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that[30]:

  • Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
  • Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
  • Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
  • One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.

In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[31]

  • A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented an "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".[32] This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’[33]

A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[34] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure. [35]

[edit] Sleep and EEG effects

Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. Whilst a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure[36], most other papers have found significant effects on sleep[37][38][39][40][41][42]. Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants' broken sleep) actually improved.

Whilst some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent[43][44], a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure[45][46][47][48]. German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%)[49].

[edit] Health hazards of base stations

Another area of concern is the radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such as base stations and their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (see Safety standards and licensing below).

Several surveys have found increases of symptoms depending upon proximity to electromagnetic sources such as mobile phone base stations. A 2002 survey study by Santini et al. in France found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who reported that they were living within 300 metres (984 ft) of GSM cell towers in rural areas, or within 100 m (328 ft) of base stations in urban areas. Fatigue, headache, sleep disruption and loss of memory were among the symptoms reported.[50] Similar results have been obtained with GSM cell towers in Spain,[51] Egypt,[52] Poland[53] and Austria.[54] There are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[55]

However, a study conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[56] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[57] The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,[58] although these criticisms were answered by the authors.

As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including 3G towers which work with larger bandwidths.[citation needed] Many measurements and experiments have shown that transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern 2G antennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further.[citation needed] The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous[citation needed].

Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.[59] This recommendation was modified in 2003[60] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.[61]

[edit] Occupational health hazards

Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etc. may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance,but the power being sent through to the antennae is cut off ,so that the workers do not have to work near live antennae.

A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.[62]

[edit] Safety standards and licensing

In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.[63]

Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.

Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.

The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".

[edit] Evolution of safety standards

The following is a brief summary of the wireless safety standards, which have become stricter over time.

  • 1966: The ANSI C95.1 standard adopted the standard of 10 mW/cm2 (10,000 μW/cm2) based on thermal effects.
  • 1982: The IEEE recommended further lowering this limit to 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for certain frequencies in 1982, which became a standard ten years later in 1992 (see below).
  • 1986: The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) recommended the exposure limit of 580 μW/cm2.
  • 1992: The ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard based on thermal effects used the 1 mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) safety limit. The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ called this revised standard "seriously flawed", partly for failing to consider non-thermal effects, and called for the FCC to adopt the 1986 NCRP standard which was five times stricter.
  • 1996: The FCC updated to the standard of 580 μW/cm2 over any 30-minute period for the 869 MHz, while still using 1mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for PCS frequencies (1850-1990 MHz).[64]
  • 1998: The ICNIRP standard uses the limit of 450 μW/cm2 at 900 MHz, and 950 μW/cm2 at 1900 MHz. The limit is frequency dependent.

[edit] Adequacy of current standards

The controversial question is whether the current safety standards are adequate enough to protect the public's long-term health. A few nations have set safety limits orders lower than the ICNIRP limit. In particular, the Salzburg Resolution for Austria recommends safety limits many times lower (0.6 V/m = 0.1 microWatts/cm2 for pulsed radiation.[65]

In september 2008 the European Parliament decided in a Resolution no 04/09/2008 – EP: INI/2007/2252, that its Recommendation 1999/519/EC, based on ICNIRP 1998 standard is obsolete and should be amended. [66]

[edit] Lawsuits

In the USA, a small number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such as Motorola[67], NEC, Siemens and Nokia, on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death. In US federal court, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In one case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer, and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff’s cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs; accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts; and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.[68]

[edit] Precaution

[edit] Precautionary principle

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[69] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable). Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern[70]. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with ALARA levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.

[edit] Precautionary Measures

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[5] France,[71] Germany,[72] and Sweden[73] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

  • Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
  • Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
  • Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[74] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[75] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[76] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[77]

[edit] Use in hospitals

Use of mobile phones is sometimes discouraged inside hospitals.

Their ring tones, as well as the resulting conversation, may disturb patients. The conversations may also interfere with important discussions between health care workers and patients.[78]

Ring tones and alarms could also be confused with sounds from medical equipment. Their electromagnetic signals could also interfere with medical devices, even in stand-by mode.[78] However, this potential interference may only be significant in intensive care and NICU.[79]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Researcher sees cancer risk from mobiles (Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute)". International Herald Tribune. 2008-07-24. Retrieved on 2008-08-17. 
  2. ^ "What are the health risks associated with mobile phones and their base stations?". Online Q&A. World Health Organization. 2005-12-05. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  3. ^ "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations". Fact sheet N°193. World Health Organization. June 2000. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  4. ^ Health and Environment - Science Milestones
  5. ^ a b "Information: Wie gefährlich sind Handystrahlen wirklich?" (in German). Marktgemeinde Pressbaum. Retrieved on 2008-01-23. 
  6. ^ "Conclusions on mobile phones and radio frequency fields". European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Retrieved on 2008-12-08. 
  7. ^ For example, two listings using the European 10 g standard: of more current models at "Mobile Phones UK". Mobile Phones UK web site. Landmark Internet Ltd. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. ; of phones from 2005 and earlier at "The Complete SAR List For All Phones (Europe)". On-Line-Net - Web Design & Internet Services (as Retrieved on 2008-01-19.  (a listing of US phones from 2005 and earlier, using the US 1 g standard, is also available at the SARValues site)
  8. ^ Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?, Foster et al., Radiation Research, 162(2):219–225, August 2004. at
  9. ^ Glaser, Roland (December 2005). "Are thermoreceptors responsible for “non-thermal” effects of RF fields?" (PDF). Edition Wissenschaft (Bonn, Germany: Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk) (21). OCLC 179908725. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  10. ^ Salford, Leif G.; Arne E. Brun, Jacob L. Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren, and Bertil R. R. Persson (June 2003). "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones" (in English). Environmental Health Perspectives (United States: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 111 (7): 881–883. PMID 12782486. Retrieved on 2008-01-08. 
  11. ^ Salford, Leif G.; Henrietta Nittby, Arne Brun, Gustav Grafstrom, Lars Malmgren, Marianne Sommarin, Jacob Eberhardt, Bengt Widegren, Bertil R. R. Persson (2008). "The Mammalian Brain in the Electromagnetic Fields Designed by Man with Special Reference to Blood-Brain Barrier Function, Neuronal Damage and Possible Physical Mechanisms" (in English). Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement (Japan: Physical Society of Japan) 173: 283-309. 
  12. ^ Electromagnetic fields (GSM 1800) do not alter blood-brain barrier permeability to sucrose in models in vitro with high barrier tightness, Franke et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):529-535 at
  13. ^ Lack of effects of 1439 MHz electromagnetic near field exposure on the blood-brain barrier in immature and young rats, Kuribayashi et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):578-588 at
  14. ^ Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review, Röösli, Environmental Research, Available online 21 March 2008 at
  15. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH (2004-12-01). "Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster" (in English). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London, UK: Taylor & Francis) 23 (1): 29–43. doi:10.1081/JBC-120039350. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 87856304. Retrieved on 2008-01-15. 
  16. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ; Chavdoula, ED; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH (January 1, 2007). "Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation" (in English). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London, UK: Informa Healthcare) 26 (1): 33–44. doi:10.1080/15368370701205644. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 47815878. PMID 17454081. Retrieved on 2008-01-14. 
  17. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ; Chavdoula, ED; Nezis, IP; Margaritis, LH (January 10, 2007). "Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation" (in English). Mutation Research (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier) 626 (1–2): 69–78. ISSN 0027-5107. OCLC 109920000. PMID 17045516. Retrieved on 2008-01-15. "Our present results suggest that the decrease in oviposition previously reported, is due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells, induced by both types of mobile telephony radiation. Induced cell death is recorded for the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber…". 
  18. ^ Harrill, Rob (March 2005). "Wake-up Call". The University of Washington Alumni Magazine (March 2005). Retrieved on 2008-05-31. 
  19. ^ (PDF)Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods, Munich: VERUM Stiftung für Verhalten und Umwelt, 2004,, retrieved on 2008-01-20  Undertaken as EU research contract QLK4-CT-1999-01574
  20. ^ Genetic Damage in Mammalian Somatic Cells Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiation: A Meta-analysis of Data from 63 Publications (1990–2005, Vijayalaxmi et al., Radiation Research, 169(5):561–574, May 2008 at
  21. ^ a b Schüz, J; Jacobsen, R; Olsen, JH; Boice, JD; McLaughlin, JK; Johansen, C (December 2006). "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort". Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Oxford University Press) 98 (23): 1707–1713. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj464. ISSN 0027-8874. OCLC 90861566. PMID 17148772. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. "Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors ..., and there was no trend with time since first subscription. ...CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.". 
  22. ^ "Comments on the Danish cohort study on mobile phones" (in German). Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. 2007-02-22. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  23. ^ "The INTERPHONE Study". International Agency for Research on Cancer. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  24. ^ Lönn, S; Ahlbom, A; Hall, P; Feychting, M (2005-03-15). "Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk". American Journal of Epidemiology (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press) 161 (6): 526–535. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi091. ISSN 0002-9262. OCLC 111065031. PMID 15746469. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  25. ^ Schoemaker, MJ; Swerdlow, AJ; Ahlbom, A; Auvinen, A; Blaasaas, KG; Cardis, E; Christensen, HC; Feychting, M; Hepworth, SJ; Johansen, C; Klaeboe, L; Lönn, S; McKinney, PA; Muir, K; Raitanen, J; Salminen, T; Thomsen, J; Tynes, T (2005-10-03). "Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries". British Journal of Cancer (London: Cancer Research UK) 93 (7): 842–848. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764. ISSN 0007-0920. OCLC 111975508. PMID 16136046. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  26. ^ Schüz, J; Böhler, E; Berg, G; Schlehofer, B; Hettinger, I; Schlaefer, K; Wahrendorf, J; Kunna-Grass, K; Blettner, M (2006-03-15). "Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)". American Journal of Epidemiology (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press) 163 (6): 512–520. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj068. ISSN 0002-9262. OCLC 108576662. PMID 16443797. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  27. ^ Lahkola, A; Auvinen, A; Raitanen, J; Schoemaker, MJ; Christensen, HC; Feychting, M; Johansen, C; Klaeboe, L; Lönn, S; Swerdlow, AJ; Tynes, T; Salminen, T (2007-04-15). "Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries". International Journal of Cancer (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons) 120 (8): 1769–1775. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22503. ISSN 0020-7136. OCLC 123857774. PMID 17230523. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
  28. ^ Lönn, S; Ahlbom, A.; Hall, P.; Feychting, M. (November 2004). "Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" (in English). Epidemiology (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) 15 (6): 653–659. doi:10.1097/ ISSN 1044-3983. OCLC 44996510. PMID 15475713. Retrieved on 2008-01-08. "Conclusions: Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration.". 
  29. ^ Takebayashi, T; Varsier, N; Kikuchi, Y; Wake, K; Taki, M; Watanabe, S; Akiba, S; Yamaguchi, N (2008-02-05). "Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study". British Journal of Cancer (London: Nature Publishing Group) 98 (3): 652–659. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214. ISSN 0007-0920. PMID 18256587. Retrieved on 2008-03-12. Lay summary – Reuters (2008-02-05). "‘Using our newly developed and more accurate techniques, we found no association between mobile phone use and cancer, providing more evidence to suggest they don’t cause brain cancer,’ Naohito Yamaguchi, who led the research, said.". 
  30. ^
  31. ^ INTERPHONE Study Results update – 7 February 2008
  32. ^ Khurana, Vini (2008-03-20). "Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour Public Health Advisory". self-pub.. 3-4. Retrieved on 2008-04-05.  Lay news article Lean, Geoffrey (2008-03-30). "Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'". The Independent (Independent News & Media). Retrieved on 2008-04-05. 
  33. ^ ACRBR - FAQs & Facts
  34. ^ Sage C, Carpenter DO (March 2009). "Public health implications of wireless technologies". Pathophysiology. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.011. PMID 19285839. 
  35. ^ Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K (March 2009). "Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases". Pathophysiology. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.003. PMID 19268551. 
  36. ^ Haarala, C; Takio F; Rintee T; Laine M; Koivisto M; Revonsuo A; Hämäläinen H (May 2007). "Pulsed and continuous wave mobile phone exposure over left versus right hemisphere: effects on human cognitive function". Bioelectromagnetics (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 28 (4): 289-95. doi:10.1002/bem.20287. doi:10.1002/bem.20287. ISSN 0197-8462. PMID 17203481. 
  37. ^ Borbély, AA; Huber R; Graf T; Fuchs B; Gallmann E; Achermann P (1999-11-19). "Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 275 (3): 207-10. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00770-3. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00770-3. ISSN 0304-3940. PMID 10580711. 
  38. ^ Huber, R; Graf T; Cote KA; Wittmann L; Gallmann E; Matter D; Schuderer J; Kuster N; Borbély AA; Achermann P (2000-10-20). "Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking affects human sleep EEG". Neuroreport (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc) 11 (15): 3321-5. PMID 11059895. 
  39. ^ Huber, R; Treyer V; Borbély AA; Schuderer J; Gottselig JM; Landolt HP; Werth E; Berthold T; Kuster N; Buck A; Achermann P (December 2002). "Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG". Journal of sleep research (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 11 (4): 289-95. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2869.2002.00314.x. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2869.2002.00314.x. PMID 12464096. 
  40. ^ Huber, R; Treyer V; Schuderer J; Berthold T; Buck A; Kuster N; Landolt HP; Achermann P (February 2005). "Exposure to pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields affects regional cerebral blood flow". The European journal of neuroscience (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 21 (4): 1000-6. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03929.x. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03929.x. PMID 15787706. 
  41. ^ Hung, CS; Anderson C; Horne, JA; McEvoy, P (2007-06-21). "Mobile phone 'talk-mode' signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 421 (1): 82–6. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027. ISSN 0304-3940. OCLC 144640846. PMID 17548154. 
  42. ^ Andrzejak, R; Poreba R; Poreba M; Derkacz A; Skalik R; Gac P; Beck B; Steinmetz-Beck A; Pilecki W (August 2008). "The influence of the call with a mobile phone on heart rate variability parameters in healthy volunteers". Industrial health (National Institute of Industrial Health) 46 (4): 409-17. doi:10.2486/indhealth.46.409. doi:10.2486/indhealth.46.409. ISSN 0019-8366. PMID 18716391. 
  43. ^ Krause, CM; Pesonen M; Haarala Björnberg C; Hämäläinen H (May 2007). "Effects of pulsed and continuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone exposure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing". Bioelectromagnetics (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 28 (4): 296-308. doi:10.1002/bem.20300. doi:10.1002/bem.20300. ISSN 0197-8462. PMID 17203478. 
  44. ^ Papageorgiou, CC; Nanou ED; Tsiafakis VG; Kapareliotis E; Kontoangelos KA; Capsalis CN; Rabavilas AD; Soldatos CR (2006-04-10). "Acute mobile phone effects on pre-attentive operation". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 397 (1-2): 99-103. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.12.001. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.12.001. ISSN 0304-3940. PMID 16406308. 
  45. ^ Kramarenko, AV; Tan U (July 2003). "Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study". The International journal of neuroscience (Taylor and Francis) 113 (7): 1007-19. doi:10.1080/00207450390220330. doi:10.1080/00207450390220330. ISSN 0020-7454. PMID 12881192. 
  46. ^ D'Costa, H; Trueman G; Tang L; Abdel-rahman U; Abdel-rahman W; Ong K; Cosic I (December 2003). "Human brain wave activity during exposure to radiofrequency field emissions from mobile phones". Australas Phys Eng Sci Med (Australasian College Of Physical Scientists In Medicine) 26 (4): 162-7. ISSN 0158-9938. PMID 14995060. 
  47. ^ Krause, CM; Björnberg CH; Pesonen M; Hulten A; Liesivuori T; Koivisto M; Revonsuo A; Laine M; Hämäläinen H (June 2006). "Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task". International journal of radiation biology (Taylor and Francis) 82 (6): 443-50. doi:10.1080/09553000600840922. doi:10.1080/09553000600840922. ISSN 0955-3002. PMID 16846979. 
  48. ^ Aalto, S; Haarala C; Brück A; Sipilä H; Hämäläinen H; Rinne JO (July 2006). "Mobile phone affects cerebral blood flow in humans". J Cereb Blood Flow Metab (Nature Publishing Group) 26 (7): 885-90. doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600279. doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600279. ISSN 0271-678X. PMID 16495939. 
  49. ^ Bachmann, M; Lass J; Kalda J; Säkki M; Tomson R; Tuulik V; Hinrikus H (2006). "Integration of differences in EEG analysis reveals changes in human EEG caused by microwave". Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc (IEEE Service Center) 1: 1597-600. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2006.259234. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2006.259234. ISSN 1557-170X. PMID 17946053. 
  50. ^ Santini, R; Santini, P; Danze, JM; LeRuz, P; Seigne, M (January 2003). "Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London: Informa Healthcare) 22 (1): 41–49. doi:10.1081/JBC-120020353. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 88891277. Retrieved on 2008-02-09. 
  51. ^ Navarro, Enrique A; Segura, J; Portolés, M; Gómez-Perretta de Mateo, Claudio (December 2003). "The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London: Informa Healthcare) 22 (2): 161–169. doi:10.1081/JBC-120024625. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 89106315. Retrieved on 2008-02-09. 
    Oberfeld, Gerd; Navarro, Enrique A; Portoles, Manuel; Maestu, Ceferino; Gomez-Perretta, Claudio (2004). "The Microwave Syndrome: Further Aspects of a Spanish Study". in Kostarakis, P. Biological effects of EMFs : Proceedings, Kos, Greece, 4-8 October 2004, 3rd International Workshop. Ioannina, Greece: Electronics, Telecom & Applications Laboratory, Physics Dept., University of Ioannina : Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”. ISBN 9602331526. 
  52. ^ Abdel-Rassoul, G; Abou El-Fateh, O; Abou Salem, M; Michael, A; Farahat, F; El-Batanouny, M; Salem, E (March 2007). "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations" (PDF). NeuroToxicology (New York, NY: Elsevier Science) 28 (2): 434–40. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012. ISSN 0161-813X. OCLC 138574974. PMID 16962663. Retrieved on 2008-02-10. 
  53. ^ Bortkiewicz, A; Zmyslony, M; Szyjkowska, A; Gadzicka, E (2004). "Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review" (in Polish). Medycyna pracy (Warsaw: Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich) 55 (4): 345–352. BL Shelfmark: 5536.020000. ISSN 0465-5893. OCLC 108011911. PMID 15620045. Retrieved on 2008-02-10. 
  54. ^ Hutter, H-P; H Moshammer, P Wallner, M Kundi (May 1, 2006). "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations" (in English). Occupational and Environmental Medicine (London, UK: the BMJ Publishing Group) 63 (5): 307–313. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.020784. ISSN 1351-0711. OCLC 41236398. PMID 16621850. Retrieved on 2008-01-07. 
  55. ^ Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations, Neubauer et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 28(3):224-230, March 2007 at
  56. ^ UMTS Base Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance Regel et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(8):August 2006 at
  57. ^ Eltiti, S; Wallace, D; Ridgewell, A; Zougkou, K; Russo, R; Sepulveda, F; Mirshekar-Syahkal, D; Rasor, P; Deeble, R; Fox, E (November 2007). "Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study". Environ Health Perspectives 115 (11): 1603–1608. doi:10.1289/ehp.10286. ISSN 0091-6765. OCLC 183843559. PMID 18007992. Retrieved on 2008-02-10. Lay summary – Study finds health symptoms aren’t linked to mast emissions University of Essex (2007-07-25). 
  58. ^ Randerson, James (2007-07-26). "Research fails to detect short-term harm from mobile phone masts". The Guardian (Guardian Media Group).,,2134778,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-11. "Prof Fox estimates that there is a 30% chance that the experiment missed a real effect because of the smaller numbers." 
  59. ^ page 37
  60. ^ Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport à l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, 21 March 2003 at
  61. ^ Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport du groupe d’experts, l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, April 2005 at
  62. ^ Moulder, JE; Erdreich, LS; Malyapa, RS; Merritt, J; Pickard, WF; Vijayalaxmi (May 1999). "Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection?". Radiation Research (New York: Academic Press) 151 (5): 513–531. ISSN 0033-7587. OCLC 119963820. PMID 10319725. Retrieved on 2008-02-10. 
  63. ^ "International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection home page". Retrieved on 2008-01-07. 
  64. ^ Levitt, B. Blake (1995). Electromagnetic Fields. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company. pp. 29–36. 
  65. ^ Santini, Roger (2002). ""Arguments in Favor of Applying the Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations"" (PDF). Retrieved on 2008-05-30. 
  66. ^
  67. ^ Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929
  68. ^ Christopher Newman, et al. v Motorola, Inc., et al., [1] . “Because no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation has been proffered by the plaintiffs, as explained below, the defendants’ motion will be granted and the plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.”
  69. ^ "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health - Cautionary Policies". World Health Organization Backgrounder. World Health Organization. March 2000. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
  70. ^ The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust, Wiedemann et al., Journal of Risk Research, 9(4):361 - 372, June 2006 at
  71. ^ "Téléphones mobiles : santé et sécurité" (in French). Le ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports. 2008-01-02. Retrieved on 2008-01-19.  Lay article in (English) making comment at Gitlin, Jonathan M. (2008-01-03). "France: Beware excessive cell phone use—despite lack of data". Ars Technica. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  72. ^ "Precaution regarding electromagnetic fields". Federal Office for Radiation Protection. 2007-12-07. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  73. ^ "Exponering" (in Swedish). Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. February 2006. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  74. ^ "UK consumer group: Hands-free phone kits boost radiation exposure". Cable News Network. 2000-11-02. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  75. ^ Manning, MI and Gabriel, CHB, SAR tests on mobile phones used with and without personal hands-free kits, SARtest Report 0083 for the DTI, July 2000 (PDF) at
  76. ^ Téléphonie mobile & santé, Report for l"Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale (Afsse), June 2005 at
  77. ^ "Bead 'slashes mobile radiation'". BBC News. 2005-01-25. Retrieved on 2009-03-17. 
  78. ^ a b "Can I use a mobile phone in hospital?". NHS Choices. National Health Service. 2009-01-08. Retrieved on 2009-02-24. 
  79. ^ "Frequently asked questions on the use of mobile phones in hospitals". Safety Information. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 2008-02-07. Retrieved on 2009-03-17. 

[edit] External links

Personal tools