Jump to content

Wireless device radiation and health: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
I have roughly described the reliability of the information given to us by scientists on mobile phones.
m Reverted edits by Billywalker to last version by Thingg (using Huggle)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Cellphone aerial mast.jpg|right|thumb|A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony]]
[[Image:Cellphone aerial mast.jpg|right|thumb|A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony]]

THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY UNRELIABLE!!!


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


Revision as of 16:50, 7 July 2008

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 feel this may be harmful to human health. These concerns have induced a large body of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals as well as 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 unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,[1][2] and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in October 2009.[3]

However, some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[4] France,[5] Germany,[6] and Sweden[7] recommended to their citizens measures to minimize exposure. Examples of the recommendations are:

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

However, 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.[8] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[9] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[10] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Laurie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[11]

Health hazards of handsets

File:Cellphone head sar 1.png
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 over 1 mg. (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 CDMA and TDMA, 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.[12]

Thermal effects

File:Eye lens.jpeg
Microscope photographs of lenses incubated in organ culture conditions for 12 days. Right frame shows Control lens with no damage. Bottom frame demonstrates the effect of microwave radiation on bovine lens sutures for a total exposure of 192 cycles (1.1 GHz, 2.22 mW). Each cycle lasts 50 min followed by 10 min pause. In the absence of microwave radiation, the bubbles are generated by temperature increase to 39.5 °C during 4 h; see left frame. Credit: IsraCast Technology News [1]

One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight. The brain's blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow. However, the cornea of the eye does not have this temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 2-3 hours' duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41°C.[verification needed][13] Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones.

Non-thermal effects

The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate [14]

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[15], 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.

Martin Blank disagrees with the thermal hypothesis, citing evidence of different pathways for the synthesis of stress proteins in cells subject to EMF radiation versus heat shock. These pathways involve different DNA segments of the same gene. He argues that since the same non-thermal mechanism behind the stress response is found for both ELF and RF ranges (the former having much lower SAR levels), the total energy cannot be the key factor. Blank postulates instead a non-thermal mechanism whereby EMF rearranges the electron configuration on DNA molecules.[clarification needed] Blank argues that this charge accumulation could overcome the hydrogen bonds joining the DNA strands.[16]

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.[17]. Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cell [18] or animal studies.[19]

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Main article: 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[20].

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.[21] 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.[22] 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 …”.[23]

In 1995, Lai and Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards in the journal Bioelectromagnetics. [24] 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.[25]. Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.[26]

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.[27] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) consider this report as inconclusive.[28]

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.[29]

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.[27]
  • 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."[30]
  • 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."[31]
  • 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."[32]
  • 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."[33]

Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:

  • Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones, that states: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours".[34]
  • 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.[35]
  • 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 SAR-derived exposure. [36]

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.’[37]

Wikinews has related news:
  • A self-published meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented a growing body of evidence that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer and that this is thus more dangerous than smoking.[38] This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’[39]

Sleep and EEG effects

Some studies have claimed to show that mobile phone signals affect sleep patterns and possibly delay sleep onset during exposure. [40] In another clinical study, carried out by Sweden's Karolinska Institute and Wayne State University in the US, the authors concluded their research suggested an association between RF exposure and adverse effects on sleep quality within certain sleep stages, though participants were unable to determine better than chance if they had been exposed to actual radiation or sham exposure.[41] The UK National Health Service criticized the research because of the small sample size used, and because of the 53% of participants who reported sensitivity to mobile use, a proportion unlikely to be representative of the general population. The NHS also criticized the press for inaccurate reporting of the study.[42]

Health hazards of base stations

Another area of worry about effects on the population's health have been the radiation emitted by base stations (the antennas on the surface which communicate with the phones), because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand due to the attenuation of power with the square of distance, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna. Base station emissions must comply with ICNIRP guidelines of a maximum power density of 4.5 W/m² (450 microwatts/cm2) for 900 MHz and 9 W/m² (900 microwatts/cm2) for 1800 MHz.[43] These guidelines are set for short term heating, which is the only understood mechanism of electromagnetic fields on biological tissue. The ICNIRP guidelines are distrusted by some.[citation needed]

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.[44] Similar results have been obtained with GSM cell towers in Spain,[45] Egypt,[46] Poland[47] and Austria.[48] It is, however, important to note that these surveys do not show statistically significant clustering or causality and those complaining of adverse symptoms may be displaying the nocebo effect, unless this is controlled in the study. There are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[49]

However, a study conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[50] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[51] The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,[52] although electrical sensitivity lobby groups have praised the study as a whole, [53] and 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.[54]. This recommendation was modified in 2003 [55]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 [56]expert report.

Occupational health hazards

Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etc. may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, because that would affect the network, so people work near "live" antennas.

A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.[57]

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.[58]

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 Electronics and Electrical Engineering (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".

Evolution of Safety Standards

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

  • 1966: The ANSI C95.1 standard adopted the standard of 10mW/cm2 (10,000 μW/cm2) based on thermal effects.
  • 1982: The IEEE recommended further lowering this limit to 1mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) for certain frequencies in 1982, which became a standard ten years later in 1992 (see below).
  • 1986: The NCRP recommended the exposure limit of 580 μW/cm2.
  • 1992: The ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard based on thermal effects used the 1mW/cm2 (1,000 μW/cm2) safety limit. The EPA 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).[59]
  • 1998: The ICNIRP standard uses the limit of 450 μW/cm2.

    • 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.[60] Health effects have been reported at even lower levels than the Salzburg recommendation.

    Lawsuits

    In the USA, a small number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such as Motorola[61], 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.[62]

    Precautionary principle

    In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[63] 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[64]. 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.

    See also

    References

    1. ^ "What are the health risks associated with mobile phones and their base stations?". Online Q&A. World Health Organization. 2005-12-05. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
    2. ^ "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations". Fact sheet N°193. World Health Organization. 2000. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    3. ^ Health and Environment - Science Milestones
    4. ^ "Information: Wie gefährlich sind Handystrahlen wirklich?" (in German). Marktgemeinde Pressbaum. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
    5. ^ "Téléphones mobiles : santé et sécurité" (in French). Le ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports. 2008-01-02. Retrieved 2008-01-19. Lay article in Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{lang-en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. making comment at Gitlin, Jonathan M. (2008-01-03). "France: Beware excessive cell phone use—despite lack of data". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
    6. ^ "Precaution regarding electromagnetic fields". Federal Office for Radiation Protection. 2007-12-07. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
    7. ^ "Exponering" (in Swedish). Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. 2006. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    8. ^ "UK consumer group: Hands-free phone kits boost radiation exposure". cnn.com. Cable News Network. 2000-11-02. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
    9. ^ 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 http://www.gsmworld.com/documents/health/sartest_handsfreekits.pdf
    10. ^ Téléphonie mobile & santé, Report for l"Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale (Afsse), June 2005 at http://www.afsse.fr/index.php?pageid=671&parentid=619#
    11. ^ BBC News report
    12. ^ 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 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 SARValues.com). Retrieved 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)
    13. ^ Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, And Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz), International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Health Physics, 74(4):494-522, April 1998 at p. 505.
    14. ^ Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?, Foster et al., Radiation Research, 162(2):219–225, August 2004. at http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0033-7587&volume=162&issue=02&page=0219
    15. ^ Glaser, Roland (2005). "Are thermoreceptors responsible for "non-thermal" effects of RF fields?" (PDF). Edition Wissenschaft (21). Bonn, Germany: Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk. OCLC 179908725. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    16. ^ Blank, Martin (2007). "Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins)" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-05-27. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
    17. ^ Salford, Leif G. (2003). "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones". Environmental Health Perspectives. 111 (7). United States: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: 881–883. PMID 12782486. Retrieved 2008-01-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    18. ^ 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20123
    19. ^ 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20138
    20. ^ Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review, Röösli, Environmental Research, Available online 21 March 2008 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.02.003
    21. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ (2004-12-01). "Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 23 (1). London, UK: Taylor & Francis: 29–43. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 87856304. doi:10.1081/JBC-120039350. Retrieved 2008-01-15. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    22. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ (January 1, 2007). "Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 26 (1). London, UK: Informa Healthcare: 33–44. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 47815878. PMID 17454081. doi:10.1080/15368370701205644. Retrieved 2008-01-14. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    23. ^ Panagopoulos, DJ (January 10, 2007). "Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation". Mutation Research. 626 (1–2). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier: 69–78. ISSN 0027-5107. OCLC 109920000. PMID 17045516. Retrieved 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… {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    24. ^ Harrill, Rob (March 2005). "Wake-up Call". The University of Washington Alumni Magazine (March 2005). Retrieved 2008-05-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    25. ^ Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods (PDF), Munich: VERUM Stiftung für Verhalten und Umwelt, 2004, retrieved 2008-01-20 Undertaken as EU research contract QLK4-CT-1999-01574
    26. ^ 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 http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1667%2FRR0987.1
    27. ^ a b Schüz, J (2006). "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 98 (23). Oxford University Press: 1707–1713. ISSN 0027-8874. OCLC 90861566. PMID 17148772. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj464. Retrieved 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. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    28. ^ "Comments on the Danish cohort study on mobile phones" (in German). Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
    29. ^ "The INTERPHONE Study". International Agency for Research on Cancer. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
    30. ^ Lönn, S (2005-03-15). "Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk". American Journal of Epidemiology. 161 (6). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 526–535. ISSN 0002-9262. OCLC 111065031. PMID 15746469. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi091. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    31. ^ Schoemaker, MJ (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. 93 (7). London: Cancer Research UK: 842–848. ISSN 0007-0920. OCLC 111975508. PMID 16136046. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    32. ^ Schüz, J (2006-03-15). "Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)". American Journal of Epidemiology. 163 (6). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 512–520. ISSN 0002-9262. OCLC 108576662. PMID 16443797. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj068. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    33. ^ Lahkola, A (2007-04-15). "Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries". International Journal of Cancer. 120 (8). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons: 1769–1775. ISSN 0020-7136. OCLC 123857774. PMID 17230523. doi:10.1002/ijc.22503. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    34. ^ Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones. L. Hardell, K. Hansson-Mild, M. Carlberg, F. Söderqvist
    35. ^ Lönn, S (November, 2004). "Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma". Epidemiology. 15 (6). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 653–659. ISSN 1044-3983. OCLC 44996510. PMID 15475713. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000142519.00772.bf. Retrieved 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. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=, |laydate=, |laysource=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    36. ^ Takebayashi, T (2008-02-05). "Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study". British Journal of Cancer. 98 (3). London: Nature Publishing Group: 652–659. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214. ISSN 0007-0920. PMID 18256587. Retrieved 2008-03-12. '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. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
    37. ^ INTERPHONE Study Results update – 7 February 2008 at http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/INTERPHONEresultsupdate.pdf
    38. ^ Khurana, Vini (2008-03-20). "Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour Public Health Advisory". Retrieved 2008-04-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Lay news article Lean, Geoffrey (2008-03-30). "Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'". The Independent. Independent News & Media. Retrieved 2008-04-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    39. ^ ACRBR - FAQs & Facts
    40. ^ Hung, CS (2007-06-21). "Mobile phone 'talk-mode' signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset". Neuroscience Letters. 421 (1). East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland: 82–86. ISSN 0304-3940. OCLC 144640846. PMID 17548154. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    41. ^ Arnetz, BB (2007). "The Effects of 884 MHz GSM Wireless Communication Signals on Self-reported Symptom and Sleep (EEG)- An Experimental Provocation Study". 3 (7). Cambridge, MA: Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium: 1148–1150. ISSN 1931-7360. doi:10.2529/PIERS060907172142. Our results suggest that RF exposure under these conditions is associated with adverse effects on sleep quality within certain sleep stages. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |quotes= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
    42. ^ "Mobile effect on sleep". Behind the Headlines. National Health Service. 2008-01-21. Retrieved 2008-01-22. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    43. ^ "Exposures from Base Stations". Mobile Telephony and Health. Health Protection Agency. Retrieved 2008-01-31. Average exposures were found to be 0.002% of the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and at no location was exposure found to exceed 0.2% of the guidelines.
    44. ^ Santini, R (2003). "Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 22 (1). London: Informa Healthcare: 41–49. doi:10.1081/JBC-120020353. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 88891277. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    45. ^ Navarro, Enrique A (2003). "The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 22 (2). London: Informa Healthcare: 161–169. doi:10.1081/JBC-120024625. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 89106315. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
      Oberfeld, Gerd (2004). "The Microwave Syndrome: Further Aspects of a Spanish Study". In Kostarakis, P (ed.). 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. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    46. ^ Abdel-Rassoul, G (2007). "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations" (PDF). NeuroToxicology. 28 (2). New York, NY: Elsevier Science: 434–40. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012. ISSN 0161-813X. OCLC 138574974. PMID 16962663. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    47. ^ Bortkiewicz, A (2004). "Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review". Medycyna pracy (in Polish). 55 (4). Warsaw: Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich: 345–352. ISSN 0465-5893. OCLC 108011911. PMID 15620045. BL Shelfmark: 5536.020000. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    48. ^ Hutter, H-P (May 1, 2006). "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations". Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 63 (5). London, UK: the BMJ Publishing Group: 307–313. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.020784. ISSN 1351-0711. OCLC 41236398. PMID 16621850. Retrieved 2008-01-07. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary=, |laydate=, |laysource=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    49. ^ 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 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113448948/ABSTRACT
    50. ^ UMTS Base Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance Regel et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(8):August 2006 at http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8934/abstract.html
    51. ^ Eltiti, S (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 2008-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    52. ^ Randerson, James (2007-07-26). "Research fails to detect short-term harm from mobile phone masts". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2008-02-11. Prof Fox estimates that there is a 30% chance that the experiment missed a real effect because of the smaller numbers.
    53. ^ "Phone mast allergy 'in the mind'". BBC. 2007-07-25. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
    54. ^ http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/zmirou/chap_ii.pdf page 37
    55. ^ Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport à l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, 21 March 2003 at http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/rapports.htm
    56. ^ Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport du groupe d’experts, l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, April 2005 at http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/rapports.htm
    57. ^ Moulder, JE (1999). "Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection?". Radiation Research. 151 (5). New York: Academic Press: 513–531. ISSN 0033-7587. OCLC 119963820. PMID 10319725. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, and |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    58. ^ "International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection home page". Retrieved 2008-01-07.
    59. ^ Levitt, B. Blake (1995). Electromagnetic Fields. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company. pp. 29–36.
    60. ^ Santini, Roger (2002). ""Arguments in Favor of Applying the Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations"" (PDF). Retrieved May 30, 2008. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    61. ^ Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929
    62. ^ Christopher Newman, et al. v Motorola, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) ("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."), Text.
    63. ^ "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health - Cautionary Policies". World Health Organization Backgrounder. World Health Organization. 2000. Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    64. ^ 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 http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&doi=10.1080/13669870600802111

    Independent Organisations

    Government

    Industry

    Web news aggregators

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wireless_device_radiation_and_health&oldid=224165017"