Information sites
Answers.comWikipedia /  Bioinitative Org.CellPhoneHealthFacts / CellPhone-Health / CNET Cell PhoneRadiation Chart / EMFNews.org / EWG / FCC / FDA / IARC / ICNIRP / International Agency forResearch on Cancer / Interphone Study /  Radiation Research Org /  Radiation.Uphero /  RFcom.ca / Swiss Federal Office of Public Health / U.S. National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet / WHO

Excerpt from 2010  Envrionmental Working Group’s Report Cell Phone Radiation


EWG launched a cell phone radiation report in September 2010 Stated That while the long term effects of cell phone radiation are still Being Studied, there is sufficient research shows higher risk That is salivary gland and brain tumors Among heavy cell phone users. EWG ENCOURAGED Their Consumers to look up cell phone’s radiation level, and to wear the headset on the phone When talking to Limit Their exposure [9].
You Can find EWG research here: http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/fullreport

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Precautionary principle

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[77] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the “precautionary principle” is “a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research.” Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and as low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern.[78] They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable 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.[citation needed]

Precautionary Measures and health advisories

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[5] France,[79] Germany,[80] and Sweden,[81] 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.[82] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[83] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[84] 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.[85]

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[86]

Exposure levels

Mobile phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating at frequencies between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30–40 cm away from their body – for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a “hands free” device – will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fields than someone holding the handset against their head.

In addition to using “hands-free” devices, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the phone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. The use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective.

Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals and on airplanes, as the radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro-medical devices and navigation systems.

Genotoxic effects

A large early 2009 meta-study of 101 scientific publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields shows that 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not.[36] 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.[37] 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.[38] 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 …”.[39] Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjecting in vitro samples of human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.[40]

In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.[41] 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.[42] Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.[43]


Comment now!
















Trackbacks