"If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed"

info@cancer-health.org

A recent issue of the journal published 2 papers on the subject of cell phone safety, as well as an accompanying editorial. The editorial, written by Philip P. Dendy of Cambridge, UK, and entitled "Mobile phones and the illusory pursuit of safety" puts the 'safety' issue into perspective:

The deceptively simple question, much loved by television and radio interviewers, "Is it safe?" is the scientist's banana skin. A Nobel prize awaits the person who first designs an experiment to show that anything is "safe".

In the light of experience with ionizing radiation and radioactive materials, out-of-hand dismissal of the possibility of subtle effects of low-intensity, pulsed, microwave radiation is most unwise.

Early in the 20th century radon and radium-enriched spa waters were "recommended" for a wide range of aches and minor ailments. As knowledge of the harmful effects of ionizing radiation has increased and quantitative risk estimates have become possible (notwithstanding rather large error bands), the permitted annual dose limit has been progressively reduced from the 1930s to the present day.

Dr. Hyland writes an excellent paper, covering the possible mechanisms by which mobile phones, or cell phones, may cause adverse effects in people. Below are some exerpts from his paper, entitled "Physics and Biology of Mobile Telephony":

…there is evidence that the low intensity, pulsed radiation currently used can exert subtle non-thermal influences. If these influences entail adverse health consequences, current guidelines would be inadequate.This review will focus on this possibility.

The radiation used is indeed of very low intensity, but an oscillatory similitude between this pulsed microwave radiation and certain electrochemical activities of the living human being should prompt concern. …there are consistencies between some of these effects and the neurological problems reported by some mobile-telephone users and people exposed longterm to base-station radiation.

The Stewart Report (1), published in May, 2000, makes some sensible recommendations, but unfortunately some of its greyer areas are now being exploited by the industry to obfuscate the issue.

As yet unresolved is the question of adverse health impacts provoked by the contentious non-thermal effects of the low intensity, pulsed microwave radiation (MWR) used. For these effects are not taken into account in current safety guidelines (2), which simply restrict the intensity of the radiation to prevent tissue heating in excess of what the body's thermoregulatory mechanism can cope with….in the case of living systems (and only living ones) there are many reports over the past 30 years that MWR can exert non-thermal influences, at intensities well below those necessary to cause any detectable heating (3).

The purpose of this review is to introduce clinicians to the physics of mobile telephony and to explain how low-intensity, pulsed microwaves can affect living organisms, both thermally and non-thermally; and then to identify some of the reported biological impacts of exposure to this radiation, particularly those provoked by the contentious non-thermal effects.

Physics of Mobile Telephony

A base-station antenna typically radiates 60 W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled. Unlike the mean beam, these side-lobes are localized in the immediate vicinity of the mast, and, despite their low power, the power density can be comparable with that of the main beam much further away from the mast. At 150-200 m, for example, the power density in the main beam near ground level is typically tenths of a µW/cm (2).

A handset that is in operation also has a low-frequency magnetic field (EMF) associated, not with the emitted microwaves, but with surges of electric current from the battery that are necessary to implement "time division multiple access" (TDMA), the system currently used to increase the number of people who can simultaneously communicate with a base-station. With handsets that have an energy-saving discontinuous transmission mode (DTX), there is an even lower frequency pulsing at 2 Hz, which occurs when the user is listening but not speaking.

Biological Impacts: Thermal

Heating of biological tissue is a consequence of microwave energy absorption by the tissue's water content. The amount of heating produced in a living organism depends primarily on the intensity (or power density) of the radiation once it has penetrated the system, on certain electrical properties of the biomatter, and on the efficiency of the body's thermoregulation mechanism.

Above a certain intensity of the microwaves, temperature homoeostasis is not maintained, and effects on health ensue once the temperature rise exceeds about 1°C. Safety guidelines impose upper limits on the radiation intensity to ensure that this does not happen.

Heating occurs whether the organism is alive or dead. The frequency of the radiation, as opposed to the intensity, is taken into account only in so far as it affects (via size resonance) the ability of the organism to absorb energy from the irradiating field.

Amongst the most thermally vulnerable areas of the body (2), because of their low blood supply, are the eyes and the testes, and cataract formation and reduced sperm counts are well-documented acute exposure hazards.

Animal studies indicate that a variety of behavioral and physiological disorders can be provoked by temperature rises below 1°C--ie, under much less acute exposure conditions…there are reports of adverse health effects of subthermal intensities, the possible origin of which will now be considered.

Biological Effects: Non-Thermal

The possibility that the pulsed, low-intensity MWR currently used in GSM mobile telephony can exert subtle, non-thermal influences on a living organism arises because microwaves are waves; they have properties other than the intensity that is regulated by safety guidelines. This microwave radiation has certain well-defined frequencies, which facilitate its discernment by a living organism (despite its ultralow intensity), and via which the organism can, in turn, be affected.

The human body is an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity whose orderly functioning and control are underpinned (6) by oscillatory electrical processes of various kinds, each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM. Thus some endogenous biological electrical activities can be interfered with via oscillatory aspects of the incoming radiation, in much the same way as can the reception on a radio.

The biological electrical activities that are vulnerable to interference from GSM radiation include highly organised electrical activities at a cellular level whose frequency happens to lie in the microwave region, and which are a consequence of metabolism.7 Although not universally accepted, there is experimental evidence7-9 consistent with these endogenous activities, in terms of which effects of ultralow-intensity microwave radiation of a specific frequency on processes as fundamental as cell division, for example, can be understood in a rather natural way.10

Furthermore, the DTX pulse frequency at 2 Hz and the TDMA frequency of 8·34 Hz correspond to frequencies of electrical oscillations found in the human brain, specifically the delta and alpha brain-waves, respectively. It is thus quite possible that living organisms have a two-fold sensitivity to the pulsed GSM signal--ie, to both the microwave carrier and the lower frequency pulsings of the TDMA and DTX signals.

To deny this possibility yet admit the importance of ensuring electromagnetic compatibility with electronic instruments by banning the use of mobile phones on aircraft (11) and hospitals (a prohibition driven by concerns about non-thermal interference) seems inconsistent.

The intensity of radiation needed for this recognition is many orders of magnitude below even that currently associated with non-thermal effects. This influence is possible only when the organism is alive, with excited endogenous frequencies; the dead have flat electroencephalograms.

Non-thermal effects thus depend on the state of the person when exposed to the radiation--ie, non-thermal effects are non-linear. A low-intensity field can entail a seemingly disproportionately large response (or none at all), and vice versa, quite unlike the predictable thermal responses. Thus not everyone can be expected to be affected in the same way by identical exposure to the same radiation.

A good example of human vulnerability to a non-thermal,electromagnetic influence is the ability of a light flashing at about 15 Hz to induce seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy (12). It is not so much the amount of energy absorbed from the light that provokes the seizure, but rather the information transmitted to the brain by the (coherent) regularity of its flashing, at a frequency that the brain "recognises" because it matches or is close to a frequency utilised by the brain itself.

What do we know experimentally about non-thermal biological influences of MWR (both pulsed and continuous) of an intensity close to that near a mobile phone handset, but often at higher microwave carrier frequencies? A selection of in vitro studies is given in panel 1.

Panel 1: Selected in vitro studies of non-thermal effects of microwave radiation of various frequencies and intensities

In vivo evidence of non-thermal influences, including exposure to actual GSM radiation, comes predominantly from animal studies (panel 2).

Panel 2: Selected in vivo studies of non-thermal microwave exposure, including GSM radiation

Finally, human in vivo studies, under GSM or similar conditions, include effects on the EEG and on blood pressure. A delayed increase in spectral power density (particularly in the alpha band) has been corroborated (31) in the "awake" EEG of adults exposed to GSM radiation. Influences on the "alseep" EEG include a shortening of rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep during which the power density in the alpha band increases (32), and effects on non-REM sleep (33). Exposure to mobile phone radiation also decreases the preparatory slow potentials in certain regions of the brain (34) and affects memory tasks (35). In 1998, Braune et al (36) recorded increases in resting blood pressure during exposure to radiofrequencies.

Non-thermal effects have proved controversial, and independent attempts to replicate them have not always been successful. Such difficulties are not unexpected, however, because these effects depend on the state of the organism when it is exposed, particularly in vivo.

Possible Associated Adverse Health Reactions

…GSM radiation does seem to affect non-thermally a variety of brain functions (including the neuroendocrine system), and health problems reported anecdotally do tend to be neurological, although formal confirmation of such reports, based on epidemiological studies, is still lacking.

For example:

reports of headache are consistent with the effect of the radiation on the dopamine-opiate system of the brain27 and
the permeability of the blood-brain barrier (26), both of which have been connected to headache (40,41).
Reports of sleep disruption are consistent with effects of the radiation on melatonin levels (25) and
on rapid-eye-movement sleep (32).

Furthermore, since there is no reason to suppose that the seizure-inducing ability (12) of a flashing visible light does not extend to microwave radiation (which can access the brain through the skull) flashing at a similarly low frequency, together with the fact that exposure to pulsed MWR can induce epileptic activity in rats (24), reports of epileptic activity in some children exposed to base-station radiation are perhaps not surprising.

Finally, the significant increase (by a factor of between 2 and 3) in the incidence of neuroepithelial tumours (the laterality of which correlates with cell-phone use) found in a nationwide US study (42) is consistent not only with the genotoxicity of GSM radiation, as indicated by increased DNA strand breaks (28) and formation of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei but also with its promotional effect on tumour development (43).

…it cannot be denied that non-thermal effects of the MWR used in mobile telephony do have the potential to induce adverse health reactions of the kind reported, and this possibility should not be ignored even if only a small minority of people are at risk.

Whether a person is affected or not could depend, for example, on the level of stress before exposure; if it is high enough, the additional contribution from MWR exposure might be sufficient to trigger an abnormality that would otherwise have remained latent.

It is often argued that anecdotal reports of health problems should be dismissed. However, given the paucity of systematic epidemiological studies of this new technology, such reports are an indispensable source of information, a point acknowledged in the 1999 report of the UK parliamentary committee (44).

Preadolescent children can be expected to be more vulnerable to any adverse health effects than adults because absorption of GSM microwaves is greatest (5) in an object about the size of a child's head, because of the "head resonance" effect and the greater ease with which the radiation can penetrate the thinner skull of an infant (1).

Also the multiframe repetition frequency of 8·34 Hz and the 2 Hz pulsing in the DTX mode of cellphones lie in the range of the alpha and delta brain-waves, respectively.

In a child, alpha waves do not replace delta waves as a stable activity until the age of about 12 years. Furthermore, the immune system, whose efficacy is degraded (19,25) by this kind of radiation, is less robust in children.

This makes them less able to cope with any adverse health effect that might be provoked by chronic exposure, not only to the pulsed microwave radiation but also to the the more penetrating low-frequency magnetic fields associated with the current surges from the handset battery which can reach 40 µT (peak) near the back of the case (45). Indications of the biological noxiousness of these magnetic fields (in animals) can be found in ref 25.

In the context of base-station radiation, reports relating to animals are of particular value since it cannot here be claimed that the effects are psychosomatic. Of particular interest is a publication on cattle (43), recording severely reduced milk yields, emaciation, spontaneous abortions, and stillbirths. When cattle are removed to pastures well away from the mast, their condition improves, but it deteriorates once they are brought back. The adverse effects appeared only after GSM microwave antennae were installed on a tower formerly used to transmit only non-pulsed television and radio signals.

Finally, in support of the reality of an adverse health impact of non-thermal influences of the kind of radiation used today in mobile telephony, we should recall that during the "cold war" the Soviet irradiation of western embassies with microwave radiation (of an intensity intermediate between that in the vicinity of a handset and a base-station), done with the express intention of inducing adverse health effects, was quite successful (47).

The references to this excellent review by Dr. Hyland are given below.

Risks on the Road

In a separate Lancet report, Massachusetts scientist Dr. Kenneth Rothman said his research indicated the main public health concern was motor vehicle collisions rather than any possible link to brain cancer.

He notes that one study found that the risk of a car accident was 4 times greater when the driver was using the telephone or soon after a call and that heavy mobile users were involved in twice as many fatal road accidents than light users.

In addition, use of 'hands-free' units was no less risky than holding the telephone to the ear with one hand while talking.

The Lancet, November 25, 2000; 356: 1833-36, 1837-40

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Bad News for Hands Free Mobile Phones

Many people concerned with possible adverse health effects, including myself, have recommended the use of "Hands Free" units as a way to greatly reduce the microwave exposure. However, as we reported several weeks ago this may not necessarily be any safer.

Now, upon further review of the safety evidence, including the results of tests conducted by the British Consumers Association and published in their magazine Which? the British government has decided to withdraw its recommendation that mobile phone users switch to handsfree units.

In addition, they plan to start issuing leaflets warning buyers of the unknown, but potentially harmful impact of mobile phone usage by children, according to a report in Newsbytes.com.

The warnings follow the British government's continuing funding of tests into the effects of mobile phone radio frequency (RF) radiation on the soft tissue of the brain and head.

Liam Donaldson, the UK's chief medical officer, said that the government's decision to remove the health approval on handsfree kits followed a number of investigations that claim handsfree devices may even channel radiation to the users head. "We don't have good enough science so far to say definitely one way or the other," he said, adding that further research is being conducted urgently to provide an answer to the question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information regarding the safety of cell phones go to EMFacts Consultancy's Mobile Phone Health Hazard's page which is likely the best compilation of data on the mobile phone issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

This is the most comprehensive detailed and well referenced report on cell phone dangers I have yet to see.

Cell phones are becoming increasingly popular, yet most are absolutely blinded to the damage they are doing to their brains by exposing themselves to this radiation. Even the conservative British journal The Lancet is warning that the dangers from this radiation can NOT be dismissed.

My recommendation? Keep the use down to as low as possible (my use is less than five minutes per YEAR). Let's keep those brain cells alive!

MOBILE phone users don’t usually get much sympathy from the rest of us - and quite rightly so. If they’re not bawling into a handset in a train carriage, they’re veering wildly across the carriageway as they try to make a call, eat a sandwich and steer a Vauxhall Vectra at the same time.
Should mobile phones carry a health warning?

But in what seems like an act of divine retribution, it has been discovered that not only do mobile phones make you look like a complete prat, they could give you cancer, asthma and Alzheimer’s. And if that’s not enough to make the buggers shut up, I don’t know what is.
Researchers at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia discovered earlier this year that the electromagnetic field that surrounds electrical appliances can be positively linked to development of cancer in mice (or negatively linked, if you look at it the mouse’s point of view).
“This is the first scientific study to show such an effect,” said Dr Michael Repacholi, whose research is being funded by The World Health Organisation as part of a £2.2 million five-year investigation into the effects of electromagnetic fields which started in June 1996.
The National Radiological Protection Board in Didcot, Oxon, which has our best interests at heart, said the findings will provide a focus for more research, but that the implications for human health were far from clear.
Research by other scientists indicates that prolonged use of mobile phones may cause hot-spots to develop inside the brain, causing damage which could lead to Alzheimer’s disease or cancer.
Dr Peter French, an immunologist from New Zealand, told BBC 1’s WatchDog consumer affairs program that he now only uses his mobile phone when it’s absolutely essential, and switches sides if a call lasts for more than a couple of minutes.
But despite the warnings, users of mobile phones remain committed to their high-tech toys. Speaking from inside a special lead-lined helmet, Paul Pettengale, associate editor of technology magazine T3, poo-poohed the research, saying “The chances of you developing a brain tumor by using a mobile phone is so incredibly slim, it’s not even a consideration. Such
suggestions are little more than scaremongery.”
“We're not saying GSM radiation is harmful. We're saying that if you're concerned about it then we've got a solution for you”
— ANGUS BROWN
Sales Director, Hagenuk However, new research has found that a far worse danger is the link between the use of mobile phones and loss of concentration and lapses in short-term memory. Boffins at a mobile phone safety conference in Brussels showed the microwave radiation like that emitted by mobile phones had the power to temporarily impair the ability of rats to learn simple tasks.
Dr Henry Lai and Dr N P Singh from the University of Washington in Seattle believe the radiation changed brain cell membranes in the rats - and the effects are so severe that it could affect humans, too.
The mobile phone industry has so far been slow to respond to the health worries. German mobile phone company Hagenuk is the first to produce a phone that blocks radiation. “We’re not saying GSM radiation is harmful,” said sales director Angus Brown, “We’re saying that if you’re concerned about it then we’ve got a solution for you.”
Hagenuk’s new phone has an antenna with a special radiating shield for the users head, so the potentially harmful electromagnetic energy is emitted in a kidney-shaped pattern away from the user.
Mitsubishi and Hitachi have also designed low-radiation phones with patents stating that the aim is to prevent damage to users’ health, but Hagenuk’s is currently the only safe phone on the market.
So the next time you see a Vectra swerving wildly between lanes on the motorway, don’t condemn the driver as a dangerous, idiotic show-off - he’s probably just forgotten how to drive his car. Poor sod.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study: Hands-Free Cell Phones Just as Dangerous for Drivers

Aug. 16, 2001

(CBS) College student Tony Dhaliwal is about to attempt a very dangerous mission: In the safety of a simulator, he'll try to drive and talk on a cell phone at the same time.

He goes over a shopping list on the phone: "You want bread, cheerios, hamburger, and--"

Just then, the accident happens. Tony Dhaliwal just flunked the test.

"I could have killed this guy. This is my fault," he says. But he also helped drive home an important safety point.

"We've found a clear pattern of impaired driving behavior while you're talking on a cell phone," says Dr. David Strayer.

Strayer, who headed a new University of Utah study on this subject, says talking on a cell phone is far riskier for drivers than, say, listening to the radio. Those using phones miss signals and are slow to react.

Most importantly, the new study revealed, it doesn't matter if the driver is actually holding the cell phone.

"We found that you are just as impaired when you're talking with a hands-free device as when you were using a handheld cell phone," he says.

That suggests that new laws, like one in New York that bans handheld cell phones, won't reduce the risk of accidents.

The distraction, experts say, is the conversation itself. Drivers can't focus on two things at once, so many tend to forget about the road.

"The problem with talking on the phone is that you actually have to think about what you are saying. So it is not simply just listening to somebody as you might listen to music on the radio, which you can sort of put into the background of what you do," says Dr. Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health.

Safety experts expect that the risk will grow: Seventy-five percent of drivers say they routinely use cell phones on the road, where the consequences are real and not just simulated.

©MMII CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reuters) Britain announced plans Friday for a $10 million research program into the potential health hazards of cellular phones.

England's Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson said leaflets advising people to keep calls short and to discourage children from using them will also be included with each new phone.

"It is essential that we provide people with the evidence on this issue to allow them to make an informed choice about using their mobile phones," said Donaldson.

Although there is no irrefutable medical evidence about health risks the government is taking a precautionary approach.

Nearly half of Britain's population, more than 25 million people, own a cell phone. A quarter of users are under 18 years old.

The research program and leaflets follow a report from a government inquiry into the safety of cell phones that was published in May.

Sir William Stewart, who led the inquiry, will head the research program that will be funded by the government and the cell phone industry.

"On the basis of the precautionary approach outlined in the Stewart report, the leaflets provide advice that, if you use a mobile phone, you can choose to minimize your exposure to radio waves by keeping your calls short," Donaldson added.

The leaflets will also contain information about living near cellular phone base stations and the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is how much radio wave energy the body absorbs from each phone.

Beginning next year there will be a European Standard method for measuring SAR which will be provided with each phone.

Scientists say the jury is still out on whether cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. Some researchers claim they are the cause of headaches, sleeping disorders and memory loss.

Children could be more vulnerable to any potential ill effects because they have thinner skulls, smaller heads and their nervous system is still developing.

A study released earlier this month showed hands-free phone kits could boost the brain's exposure to radiation. The government leaflet said more studies are needed to assess the SAR of the hands-free kit.

Research in the United States has shown that heavy users of cell phones are involved in more fatal road accidents than people who use them less often.