The Health Effects of Mobile Telephone Use
Christopher Dugan
Due: 3/10/03
The ubiquity of mobile devices today challenges us to look to the health effects of such technology. While the most widely used mobile device today is the telephone, in the future we will see other devices challenging the mobile phone for supremacy of the wireless world.
The World Health Organization reports that,“ … industry estimates that there will be as many as 1.6 billion mobile phone subscribers worldwide in the year 2005.”(http://who.int/inf-fs/en/fact193.html) This is significant as this only accounts for the use of telephones and does not even count the number of other wireless devices that are storming the market everyday. The proliferation of mobile telephones and other devices requires that we as consumers, users and residents of this planet gain a better awareness of the health effects of theses devices.
Although several studies into the health effects of mobile telephone use have concluded that exposure to radio frequency radiation or (rfr) has resulted in brain damage to small animals, to date there is no clear scientific evidence that mobile phone rfr causes damage to humans in any way.
A proper understanding of the way that mobile devices work is needed to understand the science behind the studies of the health effects of mobile phones and the rfr that results from such use.
A mobile network requires both a transmitter and a receiver on both ends of the connection. In the case of the mobile telephone, the telephone itself is a transmitter and a receiver, as well as the base antenna that transmits and receives the signal of the mobile device. The base antenna distributes its rfr in a fairly even distribution as it is designed to cover a specific geographic area. The users of mobile phones, however, are directly exposed to rfr as their calls are sent and received. Worldwide, there are several different frequencies and signal intensities in use that add to the complexity of the research underway into the health effects of mobile phone rfr.
The radiation of a mobile device is considered to be non-ionizing, meaning that it does not strip electrons off of atoms within cells as nuclear and gamma radiation does. (http://who.int/inf-fs/en/fact193.html) Because it is non-ionizing its effects are harder to measure than that of the previously mentioned radiations. Mobile phone rfr has two basic effects, thermal and athermal. (http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts052.html) Thermal refers to the ability of the radiation to cause “… excessive heating of internal tissues.” (http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts052.html) The athermal effects are far less clear-cut and refer to biological changes. These changes can be as severe as cancer or like other milder biological reactions. When referring to a recent study on the athermal effects of mobile phone rfr, the Australian Workers Health fact sheet on mobile phones said, “These changes included changes in reaction time and memory. Other reported health effects included headaches and sleep disorder.” (http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts052.html)
The most recent study into the athermal effects of mobile phone rfr was conducted by Lief Salford of Lund University in Malmo Sweden. Salford reports, “We found and present here for the first time, highly significant (p<0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in both the cortex, the hippocampus and the basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.” (http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/6039/abstract.html)
“What we are saying is those neurons that are already prone to Alzheimer’s disease may be stimulated earlier in life. However, this theory is hypothetical. We do not have any evidence yet that the human brain is affected in this way.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2728149.stm)
The BBC News notes that “ Writing in the journal, the researchers concluded:’ We cannot exclude that after some decades of often daily use, a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects maybe already in their middle age.’” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2728149.stm)
Previous studies like that of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis which was sponsored by Motorola, determined that there was “… no significant difference in tumor incidence among the groups [of rats].” (http://sciencenews.org/20020629/fob3.asp) This evidence was questioned by several other scientific minds “ Other scientists aren’t as convinced. The type of emissions the team tested isn’t the most common or the most penetrating, comments W. Ross Adey of Loma Linda University in California. Though Roti Roti tested the variety of signal that is used in the United States, said Adey, most of the world uses another signal type, which can travel further into tissue.” (http://sciencenews.org/20020629/fob3.asp)
The Science News also covers previous studies. “A team from Finland examined the activity of about 4,500 genes in human cells cultured in the laboratory and exposed to cell-phone radiation for 48 hours. The researchers, led by Dariusz Leszczynski of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki, found that in cells exposed to radiation, more than 20 genes were either more or less active than usual. They also noted changes in the amounts of proteins produced by these genes.” (http://sciencenews.org/20020629/fob3.asp)
Other research into the effects of rfr on the break up of single strand DNA by Drs H. Lai and N.P. Singh concludes that “It is difficult to deny that rfr at low intensity can affect the nervous system. However, data available suggest a complex reaction of the nervous system to rfr. Exposure to rfr does produce various effects on the central nervous system.” (http://www.electric-words.com/cell/research/laisingh/memory1.html)
Perhaps Lai and Singh best summarize the current dilemma into the health risks associated with mobile phone rfr. “At this point, since not much is known on the biological effects of mobile telephone use but there is indication that the radiation from the phones can cause biological effects which could lead to detrimental health effects, prudent usage should be taken as a logical guideline.” (http://www.electric-words.com/cell/research/laisingh/memory1.html)
All of the available research on the subject has been done with small animals. It may be many years before any conclusive research is done on humans, and many more after that before the long-term athermal effects of mobile phone rfr on humans is fully understood. While many studies worldwide are underway, here in the US civil litigations regarding the health effects of mobile phone rfr are currently being heard. Without any real evidence one way or another it will be difficult if not impossible to determine the liability of phone providers and manufactures given our current scientific understanding. With several different types of phone frequencies in use worldwide, studies will continue to produce results that only capture a portion of the actual real world mobile phone rfr exposure that we all face. Clearly this ignorance of the athermal effects on humans is going to continue for the near future.
It is the opinion of this author that mobile phone rfr will eventually be determined to be in some way detrimental to human health. There is no research that concludes that mobile phone rfr is good for living things. While theory continues to drive the studies of mobile phone rfr, it will be interesting to see what the real scientific studies determine, and what the “industry” research brings out. Until real world human testing is done none of this research will amount to more than conjecture on what the effects on humans is compared to our smaller animal cousins.
In the meantime it would be wise to heed the words of Drs. Lai and Singh and limit our use of mobile devices. Others advise use of hands free devices to limit the exposure to the head, yet the exposure still will permeate one part of the body or another. Rfr shielding will continue to be sought as more studies uncover the effects of mobile phone rfr.
With the advent of new devices on different frequencies and at different signal intensities, it will be interesting to see how the scientific community responds to such an overwhelming variety of rfr exposure. Perhaps in the future we will not embrace wireless technology with such alacrity as we do today.
Bibliography
Lai, H.;Singh, N.P.[Dept of Pharmacology, SJ-30, University of Washington, SeattleWa 98195
(RR/H.L.)] Bioelectromagnetics 16(3):207-210;1995
http://infoventures.com/emf/top/spectrum_Lai.html
Lai-Singh Research –“Cellphone and
Health”NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION
Paper presented to the Workshop on
possible biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields.
Mobile Phones and Health, Symposium,
October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria
http://electric-words.com/cell/research/laisingh/memory1.html
Workers Health Fact Sheet, Workers Health Centre, 2003
2nd Floor, 12 Railway Street, Lidcombe
http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts052.html
World Health Organization, Fact sheet # 193 Revised June 2000
http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact193.html
BBC News, Wed 5Feb 2003, “Mobile phones ‘may trigger Altzheimer’s’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2728149.stm
Science News, John Pickrell, June 29, 2002; Vol 161 No.26 p.404
http://sciencenews.org/20020629/fob3.asp
“Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian
Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones”
Leif G. Salford, at aldoi:10.1289/ehp.6039 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)
29 January 2003
( http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/6039/abstract.html