RF/EM Risks Probed

[KG4JYD]

After nearly a decade of debate, no one can say for sure whether radiation from cell phones is harmful to humans or not. So researchers are conducting a series of independent studies to try to settle the matter which involve other forms of RF/EM emissions...

I know that this is not a specific ham topic, but I feel it is directly related and that those in the ham community would get a good read out of this.

By Joanna Glasner
02:00 - Dec 6, 2004
Wired has the article here:
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,65848,00.html

[k8sem]

More junk science.

The article says that study participants will be "... persons <sic>... who identify themselves as hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields alongside people who are not".

That's like deciding if Elvis is alive by asking people who think they've seen Elvis.

[K0RGR]

Well, I don't know.

I do know that years ago, I would come home from work at midnight to my three ICOM HT's - IC2,3 and 4 AT. There were lots of people on at that hour in the Bay Area back then, so it was never hard to drum up a QSO. I'd sit up and ragchew on one or all three of the HT's for a couple hours every night.

I soon learned that if I did this with the UHF HT, I would get a headache. The headache would be on the side of my head near where I held the HT. After a few repeats of this experience, I bought a speaker mike, and kept the UHF talkie a few feet away from me - no more problem. So, I do think it is possible to experience significant body heating effects from amateur-level RF.

Why the UHF HT was worse than the 2 meter one, I can't say. Our MPE guidelines would say that 2 or 222 would be worse, but not in my experience, and I can also say that 1296 is much, much worse - I got a headache from that that lasted for several days. Perhaps my sinus cavities are resonant there?

Note: years later, I developed non-cancerous polyps in the sinus cavities on that side of my head that had to be surgically removed. Not cool. I recommend the use of speaker mikes to all HT users! Was there a connection? Probably not, but who knows? Since I've worked in the electronics industry most of my life, I've been exposed to every kind of cancer-causing chemical they've ever used, including some really exotic baddies, and a lot of nuclear radiation, too. That's the problem I have with statistical links between hams and cancer - so many of us were exposed to other carcinogens in our working lives, how can you link it to radio?

[w6em]

"Electrical sensitivity", eh? #So, those of us who have 900 MHz repeaters running near us or live near cell or 800 trunker towers should be experiencing "headaches and fatigue." #Hmmmm.

Funny, but I get a headache every time a cell phone ring tone goes off nearby in a relatively quiet public place, like a restaurant, theatre or during a meeting. #And, all along I thought it was just my personality.

By the way, good comments on the validity of studies. #It's pretty hard to isolate those who have had other occupational exposures from the masses. #Lots of stuff done on 60Hz EMF, but nothing conclusive.

A few years ago, lots of attention was given to the incidence of melanoma in workers at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (DOE weapons lab). #Employees wore dosimeters and exposure to some radiation was carefully monitored. #However, as I later learned, dosimeters didn't pick up alpha particle exposure, or incidental non-radioactive chemical exposure. #To my knowledge, no conclusion was ever reached with a suitable explanation for the elevated incidence of melanoma among Lab workers.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

(Exposed to Curium 237, an alpha emitter, in 1997, from an accidental, uncontrolled release at LLNL. No melanoma yet, though.)

[kf4uel]

Ignorance is not an option with RF....I caused a family member to have some retina vascular degeneration from over-exposure... thankfully the condition was temporary and fully reversible with a simple steroid treatment.. The over exposure was from a tempoary antenna placement using about 50 watts on 2 meters..

[K2WH]

Yep, RF is dangerous. #Way back in the 70's the ARRL handbook specifically states, "Do not stand in front of a dish carrying full RF power" (microwaves).

Just stuck my cat in the microwave turned it on. #Yep, RF is dangerous.

Sorry, but his has been studied to death. #RF is here to stay and even if it was found low levels of RF can affect human tissue after 30-40 years of exposure, what are they going to do about it? #New rules from OSHA and the DEP to hamper all kinds of business's trying to run their businesses with junk science law suits. #Oh oh, John Edwards are you listening?

To get a definitive answer to this question, just make a study of ham radio operators health over the past 100 years, currently living and cause of death of silent keys and you will have an answer. #Then again, the deaths may be because of the consumption of mass quantities of beer. #Then we will need an in depth study of field day events and the mysterious connection to alcohol over a long period of time. #Maybe beer, field day and RF mixed is the problem.

This stuff is the same stuff that comes from people who believe in UFO's, wear tin foil on their heads to keep out CIA mind control waves etc. #It is also an attempt to have these study groups maintain their jobs through additional funding, just like OSHA and DEP which recently declared beach sand a carcinogen.

K2WH

[kx8n]

Quote[/b] (kf4uel @ Dec. 08 2004,12:14)]Ignorance is not an option with RF....I caused a family member to have some retina vascular degeneration from over-exposure... thankfully the condition was temporary and fully reversible with a simple steroid treatment.. The over exposure was from a tempoary antenna placement using about 50 watts on 2 meters..
Nobody is saying that RF is completely safe. But you have to admit that a 50 Watt amateur rig, and a cell phone working in the 100 or so milliwatt range are two totally different animals.

[n1gf]

Life is too short to worry about what kills us. Just enjoy what you have to moderation. Not much of a life if you are too careful about everything. You might as well stay in bed all day.

[W5HTW]

If there is a human condition, known or suspected, we have to create a sophisticated cause for it. Millions of people worked around transmitters and antennas - not just hams - for many decades. Most of them got old and died, of course, but suggesting RF was the reason is a link that is difficult to establish.

It's like ADD, or ADHD, or whatever it is. For decades we called it "not paying attention." But eventually we had to create a disease for it, which then included doctors to treat it, research teams to research it, and lawyers to sue those who cause it, or fail to recognize it.

We called it "lack of focus." The solution was to focus. Simple enough.

Now we have people with headaches. Can't just have a headache; it has to be the cell phone. If cell phones had not been invented, we'd find a man-made noise that caused it, so we would have someone to sue.

I think gum disease is caused by over-indulgence in the use of cell phones. Too much wagging of the gums. Causes bad teeth, too. And probably causes the big toe to bend inward. Certainly it causes arthritis in the fingers from poking buttons. So sue someone. Or perhaps, everyone.

Ed

[aa1mn]

There was an interesting show on PBS some years back, can't remember if it was Nova or Frontline, that dealt with a similar situation where a group of people in a particular neighborhood were convinced that the high tension wires and associated sub-stations were at fault for every and all medical condtions.

The only problem was is that despite several studies showing that there was more electro-magnetic discharge coming from the full moon than there was from the accused, and innocent, electrical wires certain individuals were not convinced.

Does anyone remember this show besides me?

It had a good ending ,fortunately, as all twenty-nine of them reportedly became members of Heaven's Gate movement and have shed their earthly vessels for better lives than ours.

Good luck to 'em.

Chuck, AA1MN

[AE4TM]

Wow, what a forum. I have long wondered if such a forum would ever get started.

As a physician, we initially struggled with the issue as to whether RF exposure from cell phones caused brain cancer or not. We proposed a multitude of NIH research grants to study this question. In the process of preparing one such grant, we looked up the literature to see if any specific patient groups had a higher cancer rate or not. Hams quickly emerged as a good study population because of their obviously higher RF radio exposure. We were quickly amazed to find that hams did have a SLIGHTLY higher rate of brain cancer than the general population. However, when the hams who exposed themselves to lead solder fumes on a regular basis (recall lead is stored in the bones and neural tissue) were taken into account the rate of brain cancer was the same as the general population.

There are also a number of studies from the US Military regarding cancer rates in soldiers stationed at Over The Horizon Radar (OTHR) sites in the Artic Circle during the Cold War. Many of those individuals were known to leave their "huts" in the middle of the winter because of "cabin fever" and stand in front of their HF Radar Transmitter Beams! It did help to keep them warm-inside out. Decades later, they have no difference in their overall cancer rates than the rest of the population.

I will say that I cannot say with 100% percent certainty that RF (above UV) is safe because no one knows for certain; however, I have not seen anything in my past work as a physicist and more recently as a physician that worries me in this regard. EM radiation above and including the visible region, IR region, microwave region, and radio region is NON-IONIZING! In other words, your DNA is NOT changed. This is not true with UV, X-Rays, or Gamma Rays. These latter three regions of the EM spectrum do modify molecular structures but these are VERY FAR from the cell phone frequencies being considered in this thread.

Since UV does cause obvious changes to DNA, I think it would be useful to study the rates of skin cancer in hams exposed to sunlight+RF vs RF alone.

Ed AE4TM (http://ecjones.org/)

[W9WHE]

"Life is too short to worry about what kills us".

A very foolish - and likely to be a self fufulling prophicy. People said the same dumb thing about cigaretts, lead injestion and gamma radiation! Heck, at one time, gamma radiation was even promoted by some in the medical profession as a cure for rashes and acne!

RF IS DANGEROUS. RF can cause blindness, tumors and burns. The question is: how much at what frequency is safe? We don't really know. Smart people (those likely to live longest) will minimize exposure to things that can harm them until a safe level can be established.

Don't be foolish. Minimize your exposure. ESPECIALLY to VHF and above.


W9WHE

[N0MLR]

I know how to take care of the problem completly. Just make it against the law to use a cell phone in eating establishments. We all know people wait to place or receive calls till they go out to eat.
Sorry that is a pet peeve of mine!
RF and EM is Junk Science? Yeah I think so to. But it keeps all the Lawyers and Scientists off welfare while they study it.
I really am for a Ban on cell phone use in all Public Areas. Nobody is that damn important that a call can't wait till they are in their own car, home, or office!

Greg Dunn / N0MLR

[N0MLR]

uhhhh Scratch car on that last post that just aint safe LOL

[K9OXX]

read the body electric written by Robert Beck the chief of neurosurgry for the VA in washington dc. who consistently proved in the lab
that it took very little rf power to do damage at the cellular levels. so beware. and that millivolt levels of dc would improve healing times of broken bones. can anyone guess what would happen to the nation and the public utilities if and when it is provend that cell phones and power lines tv stations and such do such damage

[kc7jty]

Ah yes.......cigarettes were safe and "beneficial to the health and digestion" for decades. Interesting to see what the future holds....we may be getting RF'd to death.

[K7FE]

I get a headache when my mother-in-law calls me on my cell phone.

[w6em]

Does anyone remember diathermy? #The old treatment involved use of HF RF radiation, as I remember, for a variety of ills, to warm up the target area of the body.

Did anyone do a mortality study of diathermy patients with respect to cancer or other maladies?

That one would be real interesting, as it wasn't occupational, and probably had some controls on exposure location, RF intensity and time of exposure.


Lee
W6EM

[kf4vgx]

Pre QRZ , }

Life is too short to worry about what kills us.
................

Life can be even shorter than one knows ,RF is not a healthy solution . Unexposed RF is dangerous ,no mater what the device,there is a human condition. Perhaps the same as ultra violet sun rays effect each and all of us in different ways .

[wb0m]

I can't be convinced they are 100% safe. From my own personal experience, I had an acoustic neuroma removed about three years ago from the side of my head that the cell phone was used. An acoustic neuroma is a tumor an ear nerve, but not a brain tumor. Five percent of the population can develop this even without using a cell. They are on the increase, especially in the last decade, according to studies. After a 14-hour surgery they were able to remove most of the tumor. I lost my hearing for good, but the long-term forecast made it worth it. At the time they think it started (it's very slow growing) I was almost inactive in ham radio. But I was using a cell phone. Am I sure it was the phone? No. What do I now? Well, hope the technology is better than eight years ago and use an external headset. And of course, listen only half as much (hi). 73, Jeff

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (K7FE @ Dec. 08 2004,18:55)]I get a headache when my mother-in-law calls me on my cell phone.
I get a headache when she calls you also. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AE4TM]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 08 2004,19:21)]Does anyone remember diathermy? The old treatment involved use of HF RF radiation, as I remember, for a variety of ills, to warm up the target area of the body.

Did anyone do a mortality study of diathermy patients with respect to cancer or other maladies?

That one would be real interesting, as it wasn't occupational, and probably had some controls on exposure location, RF intensity and time of exposure.


Lee
W6EM
Hi Lee,

I could use some localized heating up here at Mammoth, haw. It has snowed 6ft since yesterday morning but despite being cold we are all exposed to a higher than normal level of UV radiation. I refuse to ascribe this risk to my hobby because I know it's from the thin air, high UV radiation, and craziness of moving to 8000ft elevation in the winter. Thank goodness I don't have other bad habits and add more risks to other organs as well. Wish you could hear the 50mph snow gusts right now. It sounds "wild".

Ed

[AE4TM]

Hi Lee,

I forgot to add, I couldn't hear my cell phone if I wanted to hear it right now. My walls are currently shaking from the Blizzard winds outside. This could be described as a natural form of headache therapy assuming the snow blower keeps working. Sorry for deviating from the thread topic. If I recall it had to do with RF exposure but at 9000 ft elevation, we are exposed to UV and all sorts of other insanity issues - RF induced problems are the least of our worries.

Ed AE4TM

[kx8n]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Dec. 08 2004,18:27)]Ah yes.......cigarettes were safe and "beneficial to the health and digestion" for decades. Interesting to see what the future holds....we may be getting RF'd to death.
Apparently we aren't getting RF'd TOO badly, because there are people walking around all over the world who have been using cell phones for hours a day, every day, who apparently have nothing wrong with them.

If they were that dangerous, you would think that by now people would be getting VERY sick. They aren't. By now, wouldn't there be widespread cases of brain tumors, cancer in the head and ears, or people just dying for no apparent reason? Or at LEAST having RF burns.

If there's an epidemic happening, then why do they have to search out subjects for a trial. Sounds like they are looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

We aren't talking about the kind of power coming out of ham gear. These things PEAK at about 100 milliwatts, and that is just upon connection, which takes under a second. There's probably more RF hash hitting you straight in the face as you look at your monitor and read this.

There have been trials going on about this for over 10 years. It is known as the general population. And they seem to be doing fine.

And the headaches? The headaches can be explained by the kind of lives these people lead. Why are you on your cell phone all day? Constantly being called by your employer or fellow employees? You're on the road all the time? Worried about family? Working all the freaking time?

If people want to know why they are getting headaches and getting sick, they need to look towards their "I've-got-to-get-ahead-no-matter-what-the-cost" lifestyles and stop blaming their cell phones.

[K3TJ]

I think we need to file a class action suit against the FCC for failing to warn us of the danger.

After all, we have one physician that refers to himself as "we" and a few reported in-law headaches.

I propose the warning read like this:

DANGER: USE MAY CAUSE YOU TO THINK YOU ARE MORE THAN ONE PERSON AND/OR DISLIKE YOUR FAMILY

If its like other class action suits, we can all get $0.45 out of the deal.

Respectfully, Edward Graboski k3tj

[w4dan]

Study, after study, after study has, proven no know harm from cel phone rf.

Cel phones have become so addictive to many users that even if real studies prove positive harm, most users would not discontinue use. Just like smokers and tobacco users are reluctant to give up a habit that has proven to be harmful.

[kf4vgx]

News clip just out ABC news ,laptops operated on laps of male's may cause problems with fertility. HUMMM ?

[WS2L]

Quote[/b] (kf4vgx @ Dec. 09 2004,02:05)]News clip just out ABC news ,laptops operated on laps of male's may cause problems with fertility. HUMMM ?
I remember reading a news article within this past year about a businessman or someone like that actually suffered burns from his notebook computer.

[K2WH]

How about the one where state troopers (radar guys), were warned not to keep the hand held radar units on and pointing directly at the groin area.

K2WH

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 08 2004,13:40)]It's like ADD, or ADHD, or whatever it is. For decades we called it "not paying attention." But eventually we had to create a disease for it, which then included doctors to treat it, research teams to research it, and lawyers to sue those who cause it, or fail to recognize it.

We called it "lack of focus." The solution was to focus. Simple enough.
Uh, no, ADD and ADHD are real conditions. The problem is that we have thousands of ignorami, some with medical degrees and doctors licenses who've never seen a real case that misdiagnose simple behavioral problems as ADD or ADHD. My son was misdiagnosed by one such professional, and thankfully, we refused to allow him to be medicated for a condition we knew he didn't have. On the other hand, I've seen three real cases of ADHD in my life and I know the difference. Without medication, these kids would have ended up in prison. Instead, two have grown up to lead fairly normal lives, and the jury is still out on the third.

Beware the medical-industrial-insurance-legal complex! You are NOT paranoid, they ARE out to get you!

[k6sgh]

back in 1985 i purchased (from the govt bookstore in pueblo colorado) "the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation" which was a government study. #they had lovely pictures of rf probes stuck up monkies and a variety of other "test methodologies".

in the conclusion of the study was an rf map of the human body showing the various resonant frequencies associated with parts of the body. #interestingly, it showed the resonant frequency of the brain as 800mhz.

unfortunately, i no longer have this book and i have tried for years to find it online. #but i clearly remember the frequency map of the body section. #early cellphones, and many still in production, use 800-900mhz obviously. #it comes as no surprise to me that there would be some heating of brain tissue associated with heavy cellphone usage. #like most things of this type, as soon as the lawyers believe they can make some money, the class actions will fly.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (k6sgh @ Dec. 08 2004,09:44)]back in 1985 i purchased (from the govt bookstore in pueblo colorado) "the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation" which was a government study. #they had lovely pictures of rf probes stuck up monkies and a variety of other "test methodologies".

in the conclusion of the study was an rf map of the human body showing the various resonant frequencies associated with parts of the body. #interestingly, it showed the resonant frequency of the brain as 800mhz.

unfortunately, i no longer have this book and i have tried for years to find it online. #but i clearly remember the frequency map of the body section. #early cellphones, and many still in production, use 800-900mhz obviously. #it comes as no surprise to me that there would be some heating of brain tissue associated with heavy cellphone usage. #like most things of this type, as soon as the lawyers believe they can make some money, the class actions will fly.
Mr. Edwards, are you listening?

K2WH

[w8gew]

I think it's rather interesting that this topic came up on QRZ right as I'm finishing up a research paper I had to write on the health effects of cell phones for my english class. In my opinion, and thus the conclusion I came to in my paper, is that the dangers from people trying to drive a car while talking on a cell phone are much greater than any possible health effects from RF.

[w1ppy]

I remember an old mechanic who worked on our boat. He had serious problems with his knees, probably from kneeling on decks his whole life, I'd guess.

One day after he was done, I remember stopping in his place (he lived on an old barge in the river) and wathcing fascinated as he connected an old HP SIG GEN with some kind of amp, and wired it to an old heating pad so he could wrap his knees and sit in his chair. He claimed it was the best thing since sliced bread (and he was old enough to know !)

Don't rememebr what he used for an operating freq, but he was really old when he went over the side. I guess it didn't bother him much !

*I do agree, however, that too much RF #CAN'T be good, so stay away from emitters when posssible*

73! #de W1PPY

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (kx8n @ Dec. 08 2004,21:33)]stop blaming their cell phones.
I'm currently living on the top floor of a building that IS a cell tower. The feed lines are 2" in dia. (mabe they are wave guides). Would I prefer that the RF wasn't there? You bet I do!

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w4dan @ Dec. 08 2004,23:44)]#Just like smokers and tobacco users are reluctant to give up a habit that has proven to be harmful.
Yeah...ever hear of Yule Brenner?

[KA4PXK]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 08 2004,12:46)]Yep, RF is dangerous. #Way back in the 70's the ARRL handbook specifically states, "Do not stand in front of a dish carrying full RF power" (microwaves).

Just stuck my cat in the microwave turned it on. #Yep, RF is dangerous.

Sorry, but his has been studied to death. #RF is here to stay and even if it was found low levels of RF can affect human tissue after 30-40 years of exposure, what are they going to do about it? #New rules from OSHA and the DEP to hamper all kinds of business's trying to run their businesses with junk science law suits. #Oh oh, John Edwards are you listening?

To get a definitive answer to this question, just make a study of ham radio operators health over the past 100 years, currently living and cause of death of silent keys and you will have an answer. #Then again, the deaths may be because of the consumption of mass quantities of beer. #Then we will need an in depth study of field day events and the mysterious connection to alcohol over a long period of time. #Maybe beer, field day and RF mixed is the problem.

This stuff is the same stuff that comes from people who believe in UFO's, wear tin foil on their heads to keep out CIA mind control waves etc. #It is also an attempt to have these study groups maintain their jobs through additional funding, just like OSHA and DEP which recently declared beach sand a carcinogen.

K2WH
To get a definitive answer to this question, just make a study of ham radio operators health over the past 100 years, currently living and cause of death of silent keys and you will have an answer. Then again, the deaths may be because of the consumption of mass quantities of beer. Then we will need an in depth study of field day events and the mysterious connection to alcohol over a long period of time. Maybe beer, field day and RF mixed is the problem.

This stuff is the same stuff that comes from people who believe in UFO's, wear tin foil on their heads to keep out CIA mind control waves etc. It is also an attempt to have these study groups maintain their jobs through additional funding, just like OSHA and DEP which recently declared beach sand a carcinogen.

K2WH

Well I can see to problems with this one Asbestos exposure and two smoking, both can cause tumors in the sinus, brain, bladder as well as throat and lungs. You would have to find Hams and Silent Keys without apparent risk factors to draw a definitive conclusion. Personally, I think there is some link, much above statistically significant no, unless you hit someone with 50 or 100 Watts or more from 6 up and the closer to the frequency to the resonant frequency of water or parts of the persons body, the worse it is over a long period, several minutes to hours. My opinion though is, is that the increase in risk is only around a 3 to 5 % increase in risk over the general population. Other damage is worse.This is what I have come to the conculsion from reading these studies, a slight risk, but heck getting sunburned 3 X is much worse!


Kirk KA4PXK

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w1ppy @ Dec. 09 2004,09:59)]and wired it to an old heating pad so he could wrap his knees and sit in his chair. He claimed it was the best thing since sliced bread (and he was old enough to know !)
Seems to me the heating pad was heating up from the wattage applied which was heating his knees as opposed to the RF getting into his tissues.

Don't you know anyone who smoked excessively all their lives and are now quite up in years (skin all shriveled like a prune) and seemingly in relative good health?

[W9AFB]

I have a friend who was in the Army's Nike Missile program back in the 60s. They used to throw steaks on the tracking radar and in a few sweeps, they'd have dinner.

At the airport here, every time we land on a certain runway, we pass the radar site. If you're in the right spot, you get hit by a nice blast of RF. The radios buzz for a second too.

[kc7jty]

About 25 yrs ago I was on top of a local mountain which had a TV (ch 4) tx tower on it that was being worked on. When the guy (about 40) got back on the ground I asked him if he wasn't worried with being so close to the RF source. He showed me a few minor burn scars on his hands and said this is the only problem he ever had up there.
I wonder where he is today?

[wa5znu]

Quote[/b] (kx8n @ Dec. 08 2004,21:33)]We aren't talking about the kind of power coming out of ham gear. These things PEAK at about 100 milliwatts, and that is just upon connection, which takes under a second.
I don't think 100mW peak is what you get. A couple of devices I looked at show 1W peak, 100mW average over time.

See this report to the FCC on a Blackberry device:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=73015&native_or_pdf=pdf)
and
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=91964&native_or_pdf=pdf)

And this one on the Hiptop:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=262366&native_or_pdf=pdf)
which states 30dBm.

30dBm is 30dB over a milliwatt, and 10^(30/10) is 1000, so the maxiumum output power is 1 Watt. That's at 1.8-1.9GHz. The measured output was 6-9dB less.

Now, the data devices uses 10% duty cycle or so, so the average power over a short period of time is 100mW, but that's not the peak power.

You can look up the FCC type acceptance number for any phone and find its SAR data, power output, correspondence, etc.

By the way, folks using earphones and mics should consider the effect of a 2ft wire attached to the phone and plugged into your ear...maybe some ferrite beads would be in order if you're truly concerned?

[n8kg]

Just a question. How many TV, FM Radio, AM Radio, Cell Phone, Microwave, Amateur Radio, Military, etc. signals do you think are being transmitted at one time on the planet we call Earth? Is there anywhere you can go and not be bombarded with RF? If RF is causing cancer, then the whole world would be dying from it. How do you compare a piddlin' 1500 watt RF signal from an amateur, to a 100,000 watt FM radio station? Even the computer in your new cars radiate RF signals. There is so much RF bouncing around it would be hard to even identify.

I'm with some of the others. It's just another study to keep people working and the public going to the doctor and the lawyers suing everybody and their brother.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]JTY: When the guy (about 40) got back on the ground I asked him if he wasn't worried with being so close to the RF source. He showed me a few minor burn scars on his hands and said this is the only problem he ever had up there.
I wonder where he is today?

I am here. Maybe not that exact guy, but I have been is strong RF fields most of my life. I have several RF burns from getting too close to a broadcast antenna. Did tower work, Radar work, Broadcast Xmtr work, 2 way, and now around Cellular Xmtrs. Other than the slight mental condition I exibit here on QRZ when some goober starts with "no code" tom foolery, I am pretty healthy. You'd have to stick a keyed up cellphone up the wazoo for a year to get as much RF as I have gotten over the past 35+ years.

My theory? RF causes you to gain weight. Hence all the fat old Amateurs (like me).

Quote[/b] ]WPC: In my opinion, and thus the conclusion I came to in my paper, is that the dangers from people trying to drive a car while talking on a cell phone are much greater than any possible health effects from RF.

When I have to do a long cellphone call, I pull off the road. I was doing that in Mississippi when a Trooper came up behind me all lit up. He asked me what I was doing so I told him. He stared at me for about 30 seconds before he decided to believe me. Said it was the first time he had ever seen anone do that. A week later I passed a lady with three kids in the car not strapped in. She was talking on a cellphone while eating a large hamburger and driving at the same time.

[W9WHE]

Look.
Its not the mere presence of RF. Its the strength of the field. There is some level, above which RF at ANY given frequency is harmful. We don't know the level for any given frequency.

Go ahead. Be stupid. Run 100 UHF or 300 VHF watts into an antenna next to your body. Run 1500 HF watts into a vertical next to the shack. Locate your office next to the Cell site antenna pod.

But when you get sick, we know what you will say....CALL MY LAWYER! I DIDN'T KNOW....THEY SHOULD HAVE WARNED ME.


W9WHE

[wa9cwx]

As mentioned before by W9OXX, the book "Body Electric" is a good place to start.

It gives a good picture of the problems associated with the study of something as confounding as electricity and the body, when compounded by the interests of money, entrenched 'science', and government involvement.

An interesting look at the inner workings and politics of research.

A little common sense goes a long way until something more definitive comes along.
Having a hard nosed position that RF can't hurt you is fine, but if you use that concept to justify staring into your ghz horn as you transmit, or to ignore simple precautions that avoid high exposure fields, then you are an idiot. And you MAY become a sick idiot. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[wa9cwx]

Oh yes,
By the way, the 'OLD' Diathermy uses the 11 meter band.

There are other types of RF radiation used in physical therapy. They basicly all relate to THERMAL effects at different depths and types of tissue. Power levels are rather low, but focused.

Other uses of RF in medical application have been around for decades. The problem is that SIDE effects are not always obvious, nor relevant to any given study,
nor apparent in the short term. It is NOT as simple as it may seem, but I agree that we do NOT need to be constantly looking for problems behind EVERYTHING we use. Especially when in low exposure or intermittent use.
Cancer can be caused by almost ANYTHING that irritates tissue if your exposure is high enough and you have a predisposition.
I, however, believe I have organs in my body that THRIVE on RF, especially around 40 meters....

[N3JI]

Quote[/b] (wa5znu @ Dec. 08 2004,14:56)]Quote[/b] (kx8n @ Dec. 08 2004,21:33)]We aren't talking about the kind of power coming out of ham gear. #These things PEAK at about 100 milliwatts, and that is just upon connection, which takes under a second.
I don't think 100mW peak is what you get. #A couple of devices I looked at show 1W peak, 100mW average over time.

See this report to the FCC on a Blackberry device:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=73015&native_or_pdf=pdf)
and
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=91964&native_or_pdf=pdf)

And this one on the Hiptop:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....pdf=pdf (https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=262366&native_or_pdf=pdf)
which states 30dBm. #

30dBm is 30dB over a milliwatt, and 10^(30/10) is 1000, so the maxiumum output power is 1 Watt. #That's at 1.8-1.9GHz. #The measured output was 6-9dB less.

Now, the data devices uses 10% duty cycle or so, so the average power over a short period of time is 100mW, but that's not the peak power.

You can look up the FCC type acceptance number for any phone and find its SAR data, power output, correspondence, etc.

By the way, folks using earphones and mics should consider the effect of a 2ft wire attached to the phone and plugged into your ear...maybe some ferrite beads would be in order if you're truly concerned?
GSM 850 max power is ~32dBm
GSM 1900 max is ~30dBm
TDMA 800 & 1900 max is ~25 dBm
CDMA 800 max is ~24 dBm
CDMA 1900 max is ~22dBm
AMPS (FM) max is ~26-28 dBm, depending on how old the phone is and who tuned it last.

All of those are quite a bit more than 100mW, but not a single one of them run max power all the time. #The exception is if you always use your phone on the fringes of coverage. #And those aren't ERP numbers, that is power fed to the antenna. #ERP is hard to measure because it depends how you hold it in your hand, whether or not you're using a headset, etc.

I guess I better "get my head examined". #I've been working on cellular phones 8+ hours a day for the last 12 years...

Joe, N3JI

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (wa5znu @ Dec. 09 2004,12:56)]maybe some ferrite beads would be in order if you're truly concerned?
Good idea...There are way too many loaded heads among us already.

[kc7jty]

kg: I would believe that field strength of the rf would have to be seriously considered, (not to discount what you have said about all the other stuff out there).

[kc7jty]

YO sez:Quote[/b] ] Other than the slight mental condition I exibit here on QRZ when some goober starts with "no code" tom foolery, I am pretty healthy.
I like this one.
Quote[/b] ]

My theory? #RF causes you to gain weight. #Hence all the fat old Amateurs (like me).
Oh yeah!!?? I didn't know you we're a hamster poster child.



Quote[/b] ] She was talking on a cellphone while eating a large hamburger and driving at the same time.
She already had the makeup on I presume?

[ve9aim]

I'm a long time Health Physicist, and while most of my work has been in the ionizing end of the spectrum, one of the professional organizations of which I am a member, the Health Physics Society (composed of radiation protection specialists), has examined the RF/cancer and EM/cancer issue in great depth. No peer reviewed and repeatable study has ever found a connection between RF/EM and cancer. In fact even the link between cataracts and RF exposure is weak at best. (Yes, there WERE a few studies, chiefly from the old Societ Union, that claimed a cancer link. All turned out to be either bad science or outright fraud. None of their findings could be reproduced in any follow-up studies. Given the limited resources and funding for scientific studies these days I can't help but wonder if efforts should be directed toward areas where there DOES seeme to be a link- solder fumes, toxic chemicals and diet come to mind...
That said, it certainly is prudent to to follow the health physicists' maxim , and keep exposure "as low as reasonably achievable". (Emphasis being on "reasonably", lest we all end up wrapping our radios in tin foil.javascript:emoticon('http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif')
smilie)
The health Physics Society (www.hps.org) has a lot of good information on RF and EMI matters. Check out "Experts Answers" under "Ask the Experts" part of the site.

Chip W1AIM/VE9AIM

[n1gf]

Hey guys....you guys are worrying too much about nothing. We all have to go sometime. It's just some goes sooner than others. I have been a 2 pack smoker all my life and active on the ham bands with 1kw frequently, spent half the day on a cell phone and I feel great (I think). As far as mother-in-laws: I get a headache just listening to her without using a cell phone. Don't worry, be happy. Happy Holidays everyone. Repeat this after me: RF is my friend...RF is my friend. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N9CJT]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 08 2004,19:21)]Does anyone remember diathermy? #The old treatment involved use of HF RF radiation, as I remember, for a variety of ills, to warm up the target area of the body.
Lee:

I remember diathermy quite well, as I was interning in a PT lab when I got my first and only "treatment." Darn thing caused explosive growth of the candida in my nasal sinuses. No thanks!

I have to wonder if it was coincidence that I became rapidly presbyopic following that one treatment.

--Noel

[N9CJT]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 08 2004,19:21)]Does anyone remember diathermy? #The old treatment involved use of HF RF radiation, as I remember, for a variety of ills, to warm up the target area of the body.
Lee:

I remember diathermy quite well, as I was interning in a PT lab when I got my first and only "treatment." #Darn thing caused explosive growth of the candida in my nasal sinuses. #No thanks!

I have to wonder if it was coincidence that I became rapidly presbyopic following that one treatment.

# # --Noel

[g7jhw]

So then tell me about head aches.My wife has always got one ,she very rarely uses a mobile phone,but more importantly we have only one child.(IF YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM)
I wonder how many symptoms poeple get just to manipulate a desired response.
Bob/G7JHW http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n8kg]

Anybody ever hear of the HAARP Project?
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

They are bombarding the atmosphere with RF in an effort to, I believe change weather patterns.

Another question; How far does a 100,000 watt FM Radio signal need to travel before it disipates to exceptable levels? Or say a TV signal? What are exceptable levels? If I can receive a signal from an FM radio station at full scale and the station is 50 miles away, am I getting the full effects of the radiated 100,000 RF signal? How much of your 1500 watt signal radiates back into your house when you transmit? Even though your antenna is 200 feet away from the house and 100 feet in the air. Can you receive that signal? If you can then it is my contention that you are being bombarded with RF from your own rig.

Why worry about 100 mw? I don't understand the reasoning for studying such low levels when we are constantly being bombarded with much higher levels.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

cul
de N8KG

[K5UJ]

Every time this comes up, it has to be beaten back down like a stubborn nail that keeps creeping back out of a wall. This is an issue created by "scientists" who have made comfortable careers with nice incomes based on the securing of grants for "continued studies." A man wearing a white lab coat with impressive sounding credentials calls a press conference and intones ominous prounouncements..."there may be a risk--we are not completely sure at this time; more study is needed, but we cannot rule out that there may be a risk...." The media, mostly made up of journalists who were English majors, and being suspicious of science and industry to begin with, reports this widely. Constituants, the victims of poor science education and unable to spot junk science and who would not know a double blind study if it blind-sided them, call their elected representitives. The next thing you know, the FCC is introducing rules about "RF exposure." But, because RF is nonionizing, nothing will ever be found, nothing ever concluded, because, maybe a new boat or mortgage has to be paid for, so more study, i.e. grant money, is needed.

Rob/K5UJ

[W9WHE]

"But, because RF is nonionizing, nothing will ever be found, nothing ever concluded, because, maybe a new boat or mortgage has to be paid for, so more study, i.e. grant money, is needed".


If you substitute the word "cigaretts" for the word "RF" you can see the folly of such philosophy. Be smart, minimize your exposure. Don't be foolish, and sick later in life. After all, we all know that cigaretts aren't harmful....don't we?


W9WHE

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (g7jhw @ Dec. 10 2004,00:12)]So then tell me about head aches.My wife has always got one ,she very rarely uses a mobile phone,but more importantly we have only one child.(IF YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM)
I wonder how many symptoms poeple get just to manipulate a desired response.
Bob/G7JHW http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If your wife has head aches and dos Not use a mobile phone ( CellPhone ).

and you only have one child ( at present )

You need to get out of the shack ! my man and into the ( Bed ) room again!


Signed, Dr Field







http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 09 2004,09:07)]"But, because RF is nonionizing, nothing will ever be found, nothing ever concluded, #because, maybe a new boat or mortgage has to be paid for, so more study, i.e. grant money, is needed".


If you substitute the word #"cigaretts" for the word "RF" you can see the folly of such philosophy. #Be smart, minimize your exposure. Don't be foolish, and sick later in life. #After all, we all know that cigaretts aren't harmful....don't we?


W9WHE
If you are going to compare cigarettes and RF, let's be honest about it.

Cigarettes are known to have chemicals that cause cancer.

There is no known link between EM/RF exposure and cancer.

Both can cause burns and destroy soft tissue when applied to the body in an unsafe manner.

[W9WHE]

"If you are going to compare cigarettes and RF, let's be honest about it. Cigarettes are known to have chemicals that cause cancer".

TODAY, yes. But at the time, that too was an UNKNOWN. Just as the carcinogenic propensitites of cigaretts were unknown AT THE TIME, so may be RF. Could cumulative effects of high intensity RF be entirely begnin? Mabey. But given its known effects on living tisue, its unlikely.

My health is too valuable to risk. Maby yours is not. Go ahead, operate high power with no shields. Operate high power UHF/VHF with antennas close to your body. That is your choice. You are taking a risk. Just don't balme others if your bet causes illness later. But I can hear you liberals now...

"They should have warned us"
"We didn't know"
"They misled us"

And my personal liberal favorite:

'I'M SUING"

W9WHE

[n1gf]

Quote[/b] (g7jhw @ Dec. 10 2004,00:12)]So then tell me about head aches.My wife has always got one ,she very rarely uses a mobile phone,but more importantly we have only one child.(IF YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM)
I wonder how many symptoms poeple get just to manipulate a desired response.
Bob/G7JHW http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Bob, sounds like you need to see Dr. Phil. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W9GOC]

Perhaps a more worthwhile study would investigate if low levels of RF stimulate endorphin production? #Watching the general population of cell phone users, it would _seem_ that they might be self-medicating as smokers do?

Personally, I find that generating RF leading to successful QSO's provokes a pleasure reaction, yet being in the near-field region of a gaggle of cell phone users is decidedly uncomfortable.

Remember, coincidence does not imply causality,

# Frederick/W9GOC

[N9CJT]

[direct quote, yahoo frontpage, 9/30/04]

Reuters -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries. The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device.

[N9CJT]

[direct quote, yahoo frontpage, 9/30/04]

Reuters -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries. #The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 09 2004,11:02)]"If you are going to compare cigarettes and RF, let's be honest about it. Cigarettes are known to have chemicals that cause cancer".

TODAY, yes. But at the time, that too was an UNKNOWN. Just as the carcinogenic propensitites of cigaretts were unknown AT THE TIME, so may be RF. Could cumulative effects of high intensity RF be entirely begnin? Mabey. But given its known effects on living tisue, its unlikely.

My health is too valuable to risk. Maby yours is not. Go ahead, operate high power with no shields. Operate high power UHF/VHF with antennas close to your body. That is your choice. You are taking a risk. Just don't balme others if your bet causes illness later. But I can hear you liberals now...

"They should have warned us"
"We didn't know"
"They misled us"

And my personal liberal favorite:

'I'M SUING"

W9WHE
Where do you get the idea that I am a "Liberal" or that I think there is no health risk to RF exposure?

I said RF exposure is not not known to cause cancer.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (N9CJT @ Dec. 09 2004,15:22)][direct quote, yahoo frontpage, 9/30/04]

Reuters -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries. #The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device.
The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to radiofrequency radiation below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population," radiation authorities in Sweden, Norway , Denmark, Finland and Iceland said in a joint statement on Tuesday. (http://health.news.designerz.com/no-proof-that-mobile-phone-pose-health-risk-nordic-countries.html)

[N9CJT]

Mobile Phone Use: It's time to take precautions!
by Don Maisch

It is usually through the newspapers that we first find out about new scientific research, and we tend to uncritically accept what is written as factual. Behind the scene however, the articles are usually written by harried reporters under tight deadlines. They simply don’t have the time, or often the inclination, to verify the accuracy of the press releases that arrive at their desks. All too often they just reprint, with some ‘creative input’, the words they received. And all too often these words are about research funded and controlled by industry.

So even when the science is clean and factual, it can be progressively spun and refocused - both deliberately and unconsciously - to produce a change of emphasis, without any identifiable distortion of the real scientific conclusions.

A Case in Point: The Danish mobile phone study

This study, titled, "Cellular Telephones and Cancer - a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark" by C. Johansen, et al., was recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in February 2001.1 The Australian newspaper, on February 7th reported this study under the heading, "Mobiles Get Clean Bill Of Health", - which seems to be par for the course around the world.

The Australian report says:

"Mobiles phones are safe to use after all. Despite the scares, a survey of 420,000 Danish mobile users found no evidence that the devices increase cancer risk. It’s the biggest and most comprehensive study yet, and according to the American Physical Society, [Robert L. Park, see below] its ‘rock-solid database make it difficult to take issue with the report’s conclusion’. The study, published in today’s Journal of the National Cancer Institute, says mobile users are no more likely than anyone else to suffer brain or nervous system cancers, leukemia or salivary gland tumours."

Another media release reported that: "Mobile phones, even when used regularly for as long as 18 years, don’t increase the risk of developing brain cancer… The study was of 420,000 Danes who used cell phones for between four and 18 years."

Within days of the Journal publication, this industry-funded study was being promoted around the world as the final proof that mobile phones were safe to use, with little attention being paid to the source of the funding, or the actual words in the study conclusions. In Denmark, home country of the study, one major newspaper headline read "Go and use your mobile phone - nothing to worry about now".

However, despite these repeated assurances of the study’s "rock-solid database" and claims of finality on the cell phone-health question, the opposite is true. While the study included over 420,000 subjects, drawn from all Danish mobile phone users from 1982 to 1995, only several thousand had used mobiles for more than 10 years. In fact the majority of those studied had only used them for about 3 years. The report also questions the reliability of its own measurements of mobile phone use, and the authors themselves caution that "our study may currently have too few heavy users to exclude with confidence a carcinogenic effect on brain tissue following intensive, prolonged use of cellular telephones."

So how does a study with such inconclusive outcomes, hedged by doubts about the reliability of short term use with long-term incubation period diseases, come to be promoted around the world as final proofs of cellphone safety?

Cancers don’t arise overnight, and the prevailing scientific opinion is that it may take at least 10 years of mobile phone exposure before epidemiologists are able to detect any significant increase in related cancers - if such a causal connection exists. Adult brain tumours typically have latencies of more than 10 years. So when the majority of users have only had their phones for three years, it is obvious that this would tend to dilute statistical significance in the study almost to a point of absurdity.

Two recent American epidemiological studies, also looking at short-term use of mobile phones, found no evidence of an increased risk of brain cancer. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) study, led by Drs. Peter Inskip, Martha Linet and Robert Tarone, found average mobile phone usage of under 3 years had no significant increase in brain cancer and concluded that "these data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand-held cellular telephones causes brain tumors, but they are not sufficient to evaluate the risks among long-term, heavy users and for potentially long induction periods." This would certainly be the case, considering that only 35 of the NCI’s 782 brain tumour cases had an average phone use over 15 minutes per day and only 52 had used a mobile phone for more than 3 years.2

The American Health Foundation (AHF) study, led by Joshua Muscat, looked at an average duration of use of 2.8 years for brain tumour cases. Mr. Muscat concluded that "The data showed no correlation between the use of cellphones and the development of brain cancer." However, out of a total of 469 brain tumour cases in the AHF study only 13 had used their phones for more than 20 minutes daily and only 17 had used a mobile phone for 4 years or more.3

Commenting on the NCI and AHF studies in the Melbourne Age newspaper on December 22, Dr. David Samuels from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) said that, "Ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, which are a known carcinogen and which cause a number of cancers, can take up to 20 years" to have an effect. "Therefore these studies haven’t been going on long enough."

How the experts can get it all wrong

In an editorial discussion which accompanied reporting of the Danish study in the Journal of the national Cancer Institute, Dr. Robert L. Park wrongly claims that the famous 1997 NCI Linet study on childhood cancer and residential EMFs as: "…was done on such a scale and with such attention to potential sources of error that it left little room for challenge."4

The fact is that the Linet study has been constantly challenged ever since by many of the top world experts in this field. Parks also accepts without question the Linet study claim "that any link between the occurence of acute lymphoblastic childhood leukemia and exposure to EMFs is too weak to detect or to be concerned about."

Yet dozens of other studies of the same kind have found such linkages and an international team of leading epidemiologists has found that a pooled analysis of data from nine different EMF studies found that children exposed to 4 mG or more were twice as likely to develop leukemia.5

In fact, the Linet study only came to that conclusion by excluding children with EMF exposures over 2 mG. And below this level of exposure it is widely accepted from previous epidemiological studies that EMF does not have a statistically significant association with childhood leukemia.

Subsequent re-analysis of the Linet data quite clearly shows that, if a 3 mG cut off level had been used instead of 2 mG, the conclusion would have been just the opposite.6 In fact, this study is now widely used by both sides of the debate, because when these higher exposure levels are included rather than treated as anomalies, the statistics show there is a significant risk. (For an analysis of the NCI Linet study see the article "Powerline Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health - Is it time to end further research?", ACNEM Journal, Vol 17 No1, June 1998)

Although the Danish study has only recently been published, it is already under fire. The day after its release, a panel of scientists in Denmark debated the findings and questioned the validity of drawing conclusions of safety.

In summing up, the panel chairman Professor Albert Gjedde, a respected brain specialist, said the study was inconclusive and recommended that a proper study be undertaken, using better protocols. Professor Gjedde remarked that the group in the Danish study was not compared with a control group of people who had brain tumours. Michael Repacholi, head of the WHO’s EMF research project also noted this and commented that as it was not done according to the rules put down by the WHO, the study was therefore inconclusive.

Professor Gjedde expressed concern that children could be more vulnerable, because their brain cells are still growing, and therefore EMF had the potential to lead to more serious brain damage than in adults. He advised extreme caution in accepting assurances of safety, and suggested Denmark should reduce children’s exposure to mobile phone emissions to a minimum. He concluded that the question of other bioeffects unrelated to cancer also need further investigation; looking at possibilities that microwave fields from mobile phones could interfere with the brain’s own electric fields, and in the long run, damage brain function.

Possible microwave effects other than cancer: a brief history of Soviet vs. Western radio frequency & microwave (RF/MW) research

While most of the current research with mobile phone use examines the possibility of brain cancer, a far different picture is seen in the former Soviet Union medical literature, where a condition of "Microwave sickness" has long been accepted by many scientists.

During the second world war, concerns began to be raised in the USSR that military personnel may be subject to health hazards from working with radar. In the cold Siberian winters, servicemen soon found that standing in front of the radar antenna was a great way to keep warm but rumours began to circulate that it also caused sterility.

In the 1940s various American military and government agencies also began investigating the possibilities of RF/MW-induced health hazards. While they claimed to have found no evidence of hazards they did recommend that radar and radio operaters should avoid prolonged exposure as a precautionary measure.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s several new studies came to light that raised the possibility of health hazards involved with the use of microwaves. In 1948 two USA studies reported a possible link with cataract development and testicular degeneration in dogs. These studies were mostly ignored, largely because the companies that had developed microwave technology for the military began to see consumer commercial possibilities. This was the time when wide commercial use of microwaves saw the development of diathermy equipment, civilian radar and later microwave ovens - all of which were seen as the wonders of that age.

In the techno-euphoria that followed the war, there was little interest in funding research which could put a damper on expanding business opportunities. Then the Cold War began and military uses of radar and other new equipment were seen as paramount to the national interest. So any related human-health research became even more hidden and clothed in secrecy.

However in 1953 a study of workers at Hughes Aircraft Corporation found excessive amounts of internal bleeding, leukemia, cataracts, headaches, brain tumours, heart conditions and jaundice in those employees working with radar.7 As a result, the USA military was forced to initiate the first ‘open and public’ investigation into the biological effects of microwaves. The aim was to establish "tolerance levels" for both single and repeated exposures, because it was generally accepted that standard thresholds of tolerance exposure must exist. Since little research data of this kind existed at that time, it was decided that the known ability of microwaves to heat up tissue (its ‘thermal effects’) would be the main criteria, and with a safety margin applied, this has been the foundation of all so-called Western safety standards since.

The decision to choose tissue heating as the key exposure parameter was based more on a lack of scientific data than for positive reasons; however it quickly gained favour with both the military and industry as it created something that could be claimed as a safety standard, and avoided (without openly dismissing) the possibility that low-level, non thermal health effects could exist without tissue heating.

The ‘thermal school of thought’ quickly became the accepted norm with Western standard-setting organisations and as a result the vast majority of ‘science based’ research was directed at short term, high level exposures. Research into prolonged environmental level exposures that did not cause tissue heating was not encouraged, simply because it was perceived as a possible threat for technological development.

This situation was well described by Dr. Rochelle Medici, a researcher on animal behaviour, who said, "It is as though scientists had retreated from doing challenging, frontier studies because such work engendered too much controversy or elicited too much criticism. We are left with ‘safe’ but meaningless experiments. The results of such experiments are a foregone conclusion".

In the USSR, however, a vastly different political and economic system resulted, paradoxically, in giving their scientists far more democratic and academic freedom (and funding) than their Western counterparts in choosing the focus of their research efforts. Private corporations did not exist and the Soviet military was exempt from having to comply with exposure standards. They could happily design and deploy their equipment without fear of conflict with regulations, or research findings. The result was the lowest EMF standard worldwide, designed to provide protection against prolonged, low level (non-thermal) exposures.

While microwave thermal effects are accepted by both Western and Soviet scientists, it was only the Russians who expanded their own research to include extensive studies with human workers who were exposed to non-thermal electromagnetic fields. This research, gathered from actual human exposure experience, led to the recognition of a condition called "Microwave Sickness", characterised by the following symptoms: increased agitation (emotional upheavals) in combination with nervous exhaustion, fatigue, muscle weakness, reduced intellectual activity, absent-mindedness / inability to concentrate, increased sensitivity to external factors such as noise, bright light, disturbed dreaming / sleeplessness, headaches, attacks of giddiness / dizziness, unstable gait, cold hands and legs, heart problems such as palpitations, fast or slow heart beat, breathing problems, overactive thyroid and irregularities in the menstrual cycle.8

The relevance of ‘Microwave Sickness’ to mobile phone use is that, when a phone is being used with the antenna near the head, the microwave exposure to brain tissue can be in the range of the exposures reported to cause microwave sickness. In addition, various mobile phone surveys in several countries have found that users report similar symptoms which they link to their use of the mobile phone. They complain of frequent headaches, fatigue, burning sensations, dizziness, concentration difficulties and memory loss.

Not everyone experiences these symptoms of course, but some people appear to be much more sensitive than others. Such biological (rather than psychological) differences have been widely reported in research in such areas as microwave hearing, where some people are certainly able to detect the direct effects of high-frequency radio waves on the nerves of their inner ears.

A public Health Issue?

The past few decades have been a time of unprecedented technological development which is increasingly altering the way we live, work and communicate, with the widespread use of the mobile phone the most visible symbol of this technological revolution. We currently have over 4 million users in Australia. In America, about 30% of the population own a mobile phone, while the Nordic countries are world leaders with 40% of Danes, 50% of Norwegians and Swedes, and almost 60% of Finns using them. In Britain nearly half of all British children aged 7 to 16 now have a mobile phone. Nokia has estimated that by the end of year 2000 there were more than 700 million users of mobile phones around the world.

At the same time, this technology is now giving rise to important questions about the possible long term health consequences of mobile phone use. Because of the many millions now using them, even if only a small percentage of users are adversely affected, that would still equate to a significant public health issue due to the potential number of victims.

Are mobiles proven to be "safe’?

Back in 1995, an Optus brochure titled: "Health effects of Mobile Phones" said that:

"After more than 6000 scientific studies the world over, there is still no convincing evidence of any adverse health effects caused by electromagnetic fields from mobile phones… the international body of scientific research concludes there is no link between mobile phones and adverse health effects."

This viewpoint has not changed much since. For instance, in a letter to the Australian newspaper on February 6, 2001, Keith Anderson from the Australian Mobile Telephone Association assured readers that mobile phones were safe because they are designed, built and tested to meet "science-based safety standards" and that phones with this "accreditation are safe".

However, what is not said by the industry is that their often quoted ‘international body of scientific research’ and ‘science-based safety standards’ are irrelevant to mobile phone use. They almost exclusively refer to research into biological effects from short term (acute) exposure to high level RF/MW exposure - yet most of the disease conditions which are believed to be relevant to RF/MW exposure are those with long low-level incubation periods - and are multi-causal (cancer, Alzheimers, immune system compromises).

A fact admitted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). To quote:

"Most of the established biological effects of exposure to RF fields are consistent with responses to induced heating… Most studies examined endpoints other than cancer, many examined physiological and thermo-regulatory responses, effects on behaviour and on the induction of lens opacities (cataracts) and adverse reproductive outcome following acute exposure to relatively high levels of RF fields. Very few studies are relevant to the evaluation of RF exposure on the development of cancer in humans."9

What is obvious from the ICNIRP statement is that the research needed to give an assurance of safety for mobile phone use has not yet been done. It is unscientific and profoundly irresponsible for the industry to refer to unrelated research and attempt to use them as proof of safety for mobile phone use.

A hot consumer item

Various research indicates that between 20% to 60% of the energy emitted from a mobile phone is absorbed by the user’s head. The percentage absorbed depends on the design of the phone, type of aerial or antenna (the stubby ones which you cannot extend are worse because they concentrate energy into the user’s brain), and how far it is to the nearest base-station mast, as the weaker the base station signal, the more the phone will power up to maintain contact with the network.

Mobile phone use can actually heat up brain structures. This was admitted in a March 1997 Australian Government Discussion Paper:

"Human exposure to RFR [Radio Frequency Radiation] is greatest from mobile phone handsets because of the method of use, with the transmitting antenna of the mobile phone handset close to the head. There is evidence that localized hot spots of energy deposition in the brain may occur as a consequence of internal reflections."

Besides the antenna, the case of a mobile phone also emits microwaves, due to a lack of proper shielding in the case. Because of this, many mobile phones have detectable emissions out of the base of the phone which ‘couples’ with the hands-free ear piece wire and delivers microwaves into the ear piece. The extent of this problem very much depends upon the type of phone used.

The WTR and George Carlo

As a result of a widely publicised court case in the early 1990s in America, where it was claimed a fatal brain tumour was caused by extensive mobile phone use, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) set up the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) research program in 1993. This research program was funded to the tune of $27 million "to identify and solve any problems concerning consumers’ health that could arise from the use of these phones".

In February of 1999, George Carlo, head of the WTR’s research program, and who had prevously maintained the industry line that mobile phones were safe, stunned the industry with a report that he presented to the annual convention of the CTIA. Specifically Dr. Carlo reported to the industry convention that:

The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head;
#

The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the auditory nerve, was 50% higher in people who reported using cell phones for 6 years or more; moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve;
#

The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use mobile phones.

Importantly Dr Carlo stated that "appropriate steps have not been taken to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety" and that industry is "missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years would help consumers today and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety". Dr. Carlo also said that he "was alarmed that parts of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow-up by calling for and supporting more research".10

In his just published book, Cellphones: Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age, Dr. Carlo exposes the tricks and deception that the industry uses globally to confuse the science and distort the evidence. From a litigation point of view this is a gold-mine for the lawyers for, as with the tobacco litigation, they stand to make millions if they can convince juries that a widely-used consumer product is possibly harmful to health. Importantly, a lawyer does not have to establish absolute causality, s/he just needs evidence that the industry has systematically covered up and confused the scientific evidence to make it difficult for the consumer to judge. Taking this line, in January of this year, the American superlawyer Peter Angelos took on the cell phone industry with an $800 million mobile phone-cancer lawsuit in Maryland. Angelos who became famous for his litigation against the asbestos and tobacco industries has won more than $1 billion in personal injury law suits.11

Some animal studies indicating adverse effects

The use of specially bred mice and rats for laboratory research has long been the accepted form for evaluating possibly toxic chemical substances for effects on humans. This has also been the main method for attempting to determine any adverse effects from exposure to microwave radiation, similar to that which is emitted by mobile phones.

A team of scientists funded by Telstra, investigating claimed links between cellular phones and cancer, turned up a significant finding of concern. They used 200 lymphoma-prone mice as highly sensitive detectors of possible cancer promotion over their short life-span. Half of them were exposed and half not, to pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and it revealed a highly-significant doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power density roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two thirty minute periods each day.12

The industry and governments’ general response to these findings was that they should not be applied to humans - which, if it were true, would condemn billions of dollars of similar rodent research each year to the scrap heap.
#

Investigating the possible effects of cell phone radiation on long-term memory function, Dr Henry Lai of the University of Washington, conducted a series of experiments on 100 rats in 1999. He filled a large tank with opaque, milky water and gave the rats six swimming trials where they learned to find safety platforms hidden just below water level and therefore out of sight.

He found that the rats exposed to short bursts of low-level microwaves forgot the location of the safety platforms quickly, while the unexposed control rats retained these important spacial memories.

Dr Lai said about the findings: "The long-term memory of virtually all the ‘exposed’ rats appeared to have been affected… Short-term memory loss is being unable to remember something which you have just done or glanced at. Long-term memory is something which has been learned or recalled and stored in the brain. The data from this latest study is certainly a cause for concern."13

In an earlier 1994 study on microwave exposure effects on short term memory in rats’ ability to negotiate a maze, Lai and co-workers found a similar effect.14
#

Dr. Lai and co-workers also have 4 papers published on DNA damage with microwave exposure. They have observed DNA damage in the brain cells of live rats after only two hours of relatively low-level microwave exposure. The frequencies used by Dr. Lai were above normal cell phones, but close to the new PCN mobile phones widely used by American and European teenagers, and the lowest intensity at which DNA strand breaks were discovered was well within the range of mobile phone exposures.15,16,17,18
#

Researchers at Lund University, Sweden, carried out experiments in 1999 on a possible effect of mobile phone radiation on the brain’s blood-brain-barrier, a biological filter which isolates the brain and central nervous system from material in the blood supply which could create problems with memory and processing functions. Nervous tissue can’t be replaced if attacked by the body’s immune responses, so toxins and certain substances, such as the protein albumen, need to be prevented from entering the brain tissue, where they could have long-term toxic effects.

The researchers used rats and exposed them to microwaves which mimicked mobile phone emissions. After two minutes’ exposure, the rats’ blood-brain barrier opened up, allowing the protein albumen to enter the brain. Even when the microwaves were not strong enough to heat up the rats’ heads, the scientists detected the effect deep in the centre of their brains.

Professor Leif Salford, the neurologist who carried out the research, said: "We saw opening of the blood-brain barrier even after a short exposure to radiation at the same level as mobile phones… We are not sure yet whether this is a harmful effect, but it seems that molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood, while the phone is switched on, and enter the brain… We need to bear in mind diseases such as MS and Alzheimer’s which are linked to proteins being found in the brain."

Professor Salford said his team came up with the same findings when they repeated the experiment. "So we think we are on to something very significant," he said. Proteins are a normal part of the blood, but can cause nerve damage if they manage to get into the brain.19 Salford has been doing BBB work for decades, and is now discovering these effects at such low RF/MW levels because the sensitivity of his toxic detection system has been progressively improving over the years.
#

Similar research, conducted by researchers at the University of Munster, Germany, found that microwaves at the frequency of 1.8 GHz significantly increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier to sucrose in rat brain cells in vitro.20
#

In a paper titled "Potential for Interaction Between Specific Classes of Prescription Drugs and RF Fields from Hand-Held Portable Telephones", scientists from Canada’s Radiation Protection Bureau (RPB) cautioned that RF/MW radiation can " increase the permeability of the blood-brain-barrier and modulate the action of some psychoactive drugs".21

A few human exposure studies of concern

Recent research by Lebedeva et al., from the Russian Academy of Sciences, found direct cortex stimulation as a result of mobile phone exposure. In a series of experiments with 24 volunteers, using a cellular phone type exposure, they found evidence of "brain functional changes" that continued after exposure was stopped.22
#

Other Russian research, examining the influence of cell phone microwave radiation on the central nervous and cardiovascular systems, as well as temperature changes in the heads of cell phone users, found that ultra high [microwave] frequency radiation induces significant changes in local temperature and in physiologic parameters of central nervous and cardiovascular systems".23
#

C. In a British government-funded study, Dr. Alan Preece found that Cellular phone radiation produced faster reaction times in tests on 35 volunteers exposed to continuous and pulsed microwaves. Preece believes that microwave effects below thermal levels cannot be ruled out, and notes that "heat shock proteins" can also cause increased blood flow.24,25
#

A world-renowned sleep laboratory at the University of Zurich has also published a research paper in NeuroReport which suggests use of mobile phones just before going to sleep can disturb the normal sleeping EEG patterns. The researchers found that exposing volunteers to digital mobile phone radiation (GSM) for 30 minutes while awake significantly alters their EEG activity after they fall asleep, compared to unexposed controls. In an accompanying commentary in NeuroReport, Dr. Michael Petrides notes that: "The currently available literature suggests that some aspects of cognitive function and some direct measures of brain physiology may be affected by exposure to electromagnetic fields of the type emitted by cellular telephones."26
#

Dr. Bruce Hocking, at one time the Chief Medical Officer of Australia’s national telecommunications carrier Telstra, has examined 40 mobile phone users who complained of unpleasant sensations, such as a burning feeling or a dull ache mainly occurring in the temporal, occipital or auricular areas. The symptoms often began minutes after beginning a call, but could come on later during the day. Symptoms usually ceased within an hour after the call, but could last until evening. Symptoms did not occur with a normal handset, and were different from ordinary headaches. There were several reports suggestive of intra-cranial effects. Three respondents reported symptoms associated with wearing their mobile phone on their belts. Dr Hocking concluded: "Cranial and other diverse symptoms may arise associated with mobile phone usage. Physicians and users alike should be alert to this.27
#

A 20-year study of servicemen (in Poland) has established the strongest link yet between mobile phones and cancer. Research by Polish scientists shows a high cancer death rate among soldiers exposed to microwave radiation - at levels comparable to that emitted by mobile phones when in use. This is believed to be the first significant study which shows a link between humans, microwave radiation and cancer.

The team checked the medical records of servicemen who were exposed to the radiation between 1970 and 1990. It then compared their medical histories and death rates to a group of soldiers who were not exposed. Researchers found those exposed - largely through using military equipment - were more likely to get some cancers. They were also more likely to develop a whole range of cancers 10 years earlier than those who had not been exposed. There were higher death rates from cancers of the skin, brain, blood, digestive system and lymphatic system among the exposed group. The Polish paper concludes: "To our knowledge, the data for the first time presents a hint that there exists a relation between cancer risk and exposure in microwave radiation fields". Dr. Neil Cherry from Lincoln University in New Zealand has found that, depending on the model of phone used, exposures to the head may exceed the highest exposure mentioned in the Polish study.28,29
#

Researchers from the University of Essen, Germany, found that mobile phone use may be associated with cancer of the eye. The researchers conducted a hospital-based study of uveal melanoma and occupational exposures to different sources of electromagnetic radiation. They interviewed a total of 118 women and men with uveal melanoma and 475 controls matched on sex, age and location. They found a significantly elevated risk for users of RF/MW transmitting devices such as radio sets and mobile phones. Other sources of electromagnetic radiation such as high-voltage lines, electrical machines, complex electrical environments, VDUs and radar units were not associated with eye cancer.30

Heat-shock-proteins and RF/MW: a possible mechanism

Dr Peter French, at the Centre for Immunology, St Vincents Hospital, Darlinghurst (Sydney), has been conducting research into the possible production of ‘heat shock proteins’ in the brain as a result of mobile phone use and will be publishing his findings in the near future.

The production of heat shock proteins is a natural defensive measure taken by cells against biological damage resulting from protein unfolding. There is a wide range of heat shock proteins made, but they all perform similar functions in that they bind to any unfolded proteins and assist in refolding them. This can be caused by heat stress, some chemicals and possibly also by exposure to non-thermal RF/MW.

At first this may seem to be okay, as the cells are reacting to an external stress in order to prevent cell damage. However, in a review of the research into heat shock proteins and their role in cancer, published late last year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the authors mention research which has found that turning on heat shock proteins repeatedly can cause cells to turn cancerous.31 There is, as of yet, no research published that has specifically looked at whether or not heat shock proteins are produced in the brains of mobile phone users, but there is every reason to consider this a likelihood:

Microwaves at non-thermal power levels have been shown to elicit the heat shock protein response in organisms.32
#

Microwave radiation can cause physiological changes in brains and brain cells.
#

Mobile phone use can actually heat up brain structures, as mentioned earlier.

There are indications that the heat shock protein response may be turned on by a brief microwave exposure but can take a number of hours to disappear out of the system. This would be of concern for heavy users of the mobile phone, as heat shock proteins may be chronically present and over a number of years increase the chances of cancer. Another possibility also warrants investigation. Perhaps in heavy users the heat shock protein response ‘shuts down’ under repeated activation. In this case the natural cell protective response would then not be present in situations where it is needed. Either way, this is not a desirable response and further investigation should be a priority.

Implications for new technology.

Dr. French theorises that microwave induced protein unfolding is not done by heating but resonance with water molecules that are associated with the protein. If this the case, then many of the new telecommunications devices which operate around the 2.4 Ghz frequency, may elicit a greater production of heat shock proteins.

What about home cordless phones?

Though cordless phones operate at lower frequencies and power levels than mobile phones people do tend to use them for extended periods of time. This may be of concern, especially for children and teenagers who may tend to be heavy users of household cordless phones while at home.

Special concerns for children’s use of mobile phones

In 1999 the British Government established an independent expert group called the Stewart Inquiry, to examine possible health effects of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. They concluded in April of 2000 that, on balance, the current evidence did not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. However, they cautioned that the gaps in knowledge meant that it is not possible at present to say that exposure is without potential adverse health effects and as such, a precautionary approach was needed. Taking special consideration of the growing numbers of children using mobile phones the committee stated:

"If there are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head… and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children."33

On December 8, 2000 the German Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement advising parents to restrict their children’s use of mobile phones and is calling for stricter RF/MW exposure limits. "Unnecessary, frequent and extended use are to be strongly discouraged. Children only need mobile phones to communicate very infrequently, in exceptional situations" the Academy said. It advised that all mobile phone users should keep conversations as "brief as possible" but that additional precautions are appropriate for children in view of "special health risks" associated with their growing bodies.34

Considering research into an increased adverse health effect on children from radiofrequency exposure, the most important is a Latvian study on 966 school children, some conceived, born and raised in the area of a Russian early warning radar station. Motor function, memory and attention significantly differed between those exposed and those not. Children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower and their physical endurance was decreased. The study authors proposed the hypothesis that these adverse effects are the results of chronic electromagnetic radiation effects.35

In a recent Australian Senate inquiry, CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics chief Gerry Haddad warned that the new telecommunications exposure standards being drafted neglected to take a high enough level of protection, particularly in relation to children. Mr. Haddad said: "Restrict use of mobile phones to children for essential purposes . . A precautionary principle would seem to be a good idea." Dr. Haddad complained that the CSIRO's view had been rejected in the formulation of new emission standards that stopped short of advising that children be restricted in their mobile phone use.36

Taking a Precautionary Approach

If you look behind most battles over major public-health issues in the last few decades - over asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, PCBs, cigarettes and general environmental pollution - the questions always resolve down to one of the public health activists insisting on government regulators taking a "precautionary approach", and the industries concerned lobbying for the strict application of "scientific proof" before restrictive measures are imposed.

The corporations know well that ‘scientific proof’ is virtually impossible until the damage has been done, and with life-long cumulative damage, this will take another generation. They also know that the "strict application of sound science" will keep them off the hook for years to come.

In the cell phone area, the argument is much the same. With long-term diseases such as brain cancer, it is clearly impossible to establish any form of ‘scientific proof’ which can be sustained in a court "beyond all reasonable doubt", in the course of just a few years. Therefore, sensible regulators tend to take into account the potential for wide-spread community damage to health and happiness. They then make precautionary judgments accordingly, based on the best scientific evidence available at the time, even though some of these findings may be disputable.

Such measures have served Australia and the USA well in the past; for instance, in protecting the USA from the full ravages of thalidomide, and possibly today in protecting the USA and Australia from such problems as mad-cow and foot-and-mouth diseases. As globalisation increasingly tends to merge us into a single world-wide market place without a corresponding system of global regulation of corporate activities or independent funding of the essential community health research, such precautionary measures become even more important at both a personal and national level.

Countering this precautionary approach is the increasing power of corporations over politicians, and the skills developed by corporate lobbyists, polling companies, and public relations consultants in manipulating public opinion. These groups are now being aided and abetted by scientists who are sometimes overtly corrupt, but more likely to just be corrupted by the system of research funding and control.

Or as Joseph Hotchkiss of Cornell University so succiently put it:

"A host of techniques exist for manipulating research protocols to produce studies whose conclusions fit their sponsor’s predetermined interests. These techniques include adjusting the time of a study (so that toxic effects do not have time to emerge), subtle manipulations of target and control groups or dosage levels, and subjective interpretations of complex data. Often such methods stop short of outright fraud, but lead to predictable results. Usually associations that sponsor research have a fairly good idea what the outcome will be, or they won’t fund it."

For the estimated 700 million mobile phone users today, the assurances of safety by the cell phone industry are indefensible when you look at the science, and the obvious industry attempts to influence it. In the opinion of a growing section of the world’s legal fraternity, the industry’s attempts to "pervert the course of science" will be their undoing, exactly as it happened to the tobacco corporations.

However, it is not only the mobile phone manufactures (and sellers) who should be concerned. George Carlo, former head of the American cell phone industry’s WTR project, has warned of general corporate liability as an issue. Carlo said that CEOs "need to ensure that their companies’ employees operate cell phones and other wireless devices in a manner that reduces health risks associated with [cell phone] radiation - or face the consequences."

The same view was expressed on an SBS [TV] Insight program on mobile phone hazards by Solicitor Peter Cashman from Maurice Blackman & Cashman:

"There is now sufficient evidence in my view that any responsible employer who allows their employees to be exposed ought to be taking preventative measures, ought to be providing remote handsets, ought to be looking at the design of the devices and ought to be trying to minimise the duration of exposure. Interestingly, some of the more modern phones are now being redesigned to try to minimize the risk, although the industry doesn’t want to broadcast that. They do not want to suggest that the earlier designs may have been deficient - therefore exposing them to potential liability."

For both the individual, employee and employers who use mobile phones, now is the time to err on the side of caution by following what is known as the precautionary approach, better known as the precautionary principle.

A UK definition of the precautionary principle concluded:

"We must act on facts using scientific information. That does not mean we must sit back until we have 100% evidence about everything. Where the public health is at stake, the risks can be so high and the costs of later corrective action so great, that prevention is better then cure. Where there are significant risks of damage to public health, we should be prepared to take action to diminish those risks, even when the scientific knowledge is not conclusive, if the likely balance of costs and benefits justifies it"

Examples

The North Shore Hospital, which is also Sydney’s main medical teaching institution, has, as a precautionary measure, issued advice to staff in March of last year (2000) to avoid unnecessary use of mobile phones to minimise potential risk from microwaves. This hospital is also involved in the currently running NSW mobile phone / brain tumour study that is examining brain tumour patients’ use of mobile phones;
#

Also last year, the British Public and Commercial Services Union, representing some 266,000 members, issued advice to its members on ways to reduce microwave exposure from cell phone use.

Recommendations

For the reasons mentioned above, children should be discouraged from using mobile (and cordless) phones as their developing bodies can be more prone to radiation damage;
#

Incoming mobile phone calls should be kept as brief as possible and returned on a conventional wired phone;
#

When a mobile phone is being used it should be held away from the body as much as practical, not pressed against the head or clipped to a belt. Some phones have an in-built loudspeaker/microphone that allows conversations with the antenna held away from the head;
#

As much as possible, use pagers or the mobile phone’s message bank service and return calls on a conventional phone;
#

There have been conflicting reports that use of hands-free kits with mobile phones may still expose the user to microwave emissions due to a ‘coupling effect’ with the earpiece lead. The extent of this problem very much depends upon the type of cellular phone used but generally hand free kits do greatly reduce exposure. Hands free kits are now available for most cell phones, incorporating ferrite filters in the wire to eliminate any microwave emissions going into the ear piece. They should be used in preference to the ‘non-filtered’ ones.

References

Johansen C, Boice JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. "Cellular Telephones and Cancer - a Nationwide Cohart Study in Denmark." J Natl Cancer Inst, Vol. 93, No.3, pp. 203-207, Feb. 7, 2001.
#

Inskip PD, Linet M, Tarone R et al. "Cellular telephone use and brain tumors." N Engl Med, Vol. 344, pp. 79 -86, Feb. 2001.
#

Muscat JE, Malkin MG, et al. "Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer." JAMA, Vol. 284, pp. 3001-3004, 2000.
#

Park RL. Editorial comment, J Natl Cancer Inst, Vol. 93, No.3, pp. 166-167, Feb. 7, 2001.
#

"Leading Epidemiologists See Childhood Leukemia Risk at 4 mG." Microwave News, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.1, 11-13, Sept/Oct 2000.
#

Maisch D, Rapley B. "Powerline Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health - Is it the time to end further research?" ACNEM Journal, Vol. 17, No.1 pp. 5-16, June 1998.
#

McLauchlin JR. A survey of possible health hazards from exposure to microwave radiation. Hughes Aircraft corp., Culver City, Ca, USA 1953.
#

Hecht K, Balzer HU. Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Humans in the Frequency Range 0 to 3 GHz: summary and results of a study of Russian medical literature from 1960 - 1996. Berlin 1997.
#

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Issues Related to the use of hand-held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters. June 1995.
#

Letter from George Carlo, head WTR to Michael Armstrong, CEO of AT&T Corp. & October 1999.
#

"Mega-Lawyer Peter Angelos Joins Mobile Phone-Cancer Fray." Microwave News, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.1, Nov/Dec 2000.
#

Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie JH, Harris AW "Lymphomas in Eu-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields." Radiation Research, Vol. 147, pp. 631-640, 1997.
#

Wang BM and Lai H. "Acute exposure to pulsed 2450-MHz microwaves affects water maze learning in the rat. Bioelectromagnetics 21:52-56, 2000.
#

Lai H, Horita A and Guy AW. "Microwave irradiation affects radial-arm maze performance in the rat." Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994.
#

Lai H and Singh NP. "Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 16 pp 207-210, 1995.
#

Lai H and Singh NP. "DNA: single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation." Int. J. Radiat. Biol., Vol. 69, pp 513-521, 1996.
#

Lai H and Singh NP. "Melatonin and a spin-trap compound blocked radiofrequency radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells." Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 18, pp 446-454, 1997.
#

Lai H, Carino MA and Singh NP. "Naltrexone blocked RFR-induced DNA double strand breaks in rat brain cells." Wireless Networks Journal, Vol. 3, pp 471-476, 1997.
#

Persson BRR, Salford LG and Brun A. "Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication." Wireless Network, Vol. 3, pp 455-461, 1997.
#

Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S et al. "Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics Vol. 21 No. 5, pp 338-345, July 2000.
#

Canada Health Agency "Need for Cell Phone-Drug Reaction Data". Microwave News, Vol.19, No. 2, pp 10, March/April 1999.
#

Lebedeva NN, Sulimov AV et al. "Cellular phone electromagnetic field effects on bioelectric activity of human brain." Crit Rev Biomed Eng, Vol. 28, No. 1-2, pp 323-337, 2000.
#

Khudnitskii SS, Moshkarev EA, Fomenko TV. "On the evaluation of the influence of cellular phones on their users." Med Tr Prom Ekol, Vol. 9, pp 20-24, 1999.
#

Preece AW et al. "Effect of a 915 MHz simulated mobile phone signal on cognitive function in man." Int J Radiat Biol, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp 447-456, 1999.
#

UK Study: Mobile Phones Can make the Brain Work Faster. Microwave News. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp 1& 11, March/April, 1999.
#

Huber R, Graf T et al. "Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking affects human sleep EEG." NeuroReport, Vol. 11, No. 15, pp 3321-3325, Oct.2000.
#

Hocking B. "Preliminary report: symptoms associated with mobile phone use." Occup Med (Lond), Vol. 48, No. 6, pp 357-360, 1998.
#

Szmigielski S. "Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radio frequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation." Science of the Total Environment, Vol 180, pp 9-17, 1996.
#

Cherry N. "Criticism of the Proposal to Adopt ICNIRP Guidelines for Cellsites in New Zealand & Australia." Radio Frequency & Microwave Radiation 100kHz - 300 GHz. pp: 109-112, April 2000.
#

Stang A, X Anastassiou, G et al. "The possible role of radio frequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology, Vol. 12, pp 7-12, Jan. 2001.
#

Jolly C, Morimoto RI te al. Journal of hte National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, pp: 1564-1761, Oct. 2000.
#

De Pomerai DI et al. "Effects of stress-inducing microwave radiation on life-cycle parameters in the nematode Caenorrabditis elegans." Presented at the 20th Annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, St. Pete Beach, Florida. USA, June 1999.
#

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones Mobile Phones and Health, pp 121, 28 April 2000
#

German Academy of Pediatrics. "Keep Kids Away from Phones." Microwave News, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp 5, Jan/Feb 2001.
#

Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. "Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia." The Science of the Total Environment. Vol. 180, pp 87-93, 1996.
#

Kearney, S. "Kids phone usage fears", the Sunday Tasmanian, March 18, 2001.

For further information please contact the author, Don Maisch on e-mail: emfacts@trump.net.au

Also see a follow-up article written early 2002 by this author: "Children & Mobile Phone Use: Is there a risk?"

[ke4pjw]

Looks like Don Maisch (http://www.emfacts.com/) is not exactly a shining example of an unbiased source.

[AE4TM]

Wow what conflicting reports. From a PhD physicist's point of view I can add that the ionization capability of individual RF photons varies as E = hf, where E is the photon energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency. This has yet to be mentioned previously in this thread and you can attempt to disprove Albert Einstein if you don't like this formula. It simply means that higher frequencies have more atomic ionization potential. If you take Planck's constant (=6.63 x 10^-34 Joules second) and plug in the energy necessary to mutate your DNA, i.e. scramble your cell's genetic code, you will find that only UV, X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays are capable of making these changes. (NOTE: Cosmic rays are the highest frequency and thus worse and have you ever looked at the effects of astronauts being in space?) However, this formula doesn't mean RF cannot have some adverse effect because RF does cause heating effects on tissues as others have previously noted in this thread. I will point out that a high power HT cannot put out more than 7 Watts as dictated by the FCC for our protection. For comparison, the Solar Constant is over 1300 Watts of Heating per Square Meter! For all the sun bather hams, this means they are warming themselves at 1300 Watts because the average body has close to 1 sq-meter of surface area. This is huge compared to an HT and this in turn is huge compared to the puny power output of a cell phone which runs in the mW range! Furthermore, unlike cell phones and HT's, sunlight has UV and UV has the individual photon energy to ionize your DNA, also confirmed confirmed by Albert Einstein, causing permanent molecular damage! Like Lee W6EM recently commented, cell phones are dangerous because they divert your attention from your surroundings.

As a learning exercise, I challenge others to search the web for values of energy needed to modify your DNA. Unless you look up the numbers yourself, you will not see why I stated previously stated that I am not concerned with this RF danger to tissue issue.

Dr Ed AE4TM (http://ecjones.org/)

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kf4vgx @ Dec. 09 2004,06:05)]News clip just out ABC news ,laptops operated on laps of male's may cause problems with fertility. HUMMM ?
From Slashdot.org (http://www.slashdot.org):
"Researchers find that men who place portable computers on their laps are inadvertently raising the temperature of their scrotums -- and possibly damaging their sperm. Guess laptops should get a namechange soon... before our fertility does."

The actual article and comments are located here:
http://science.slashdot.org/article....&tid=14 (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/09/1321211&tid=184&tid=14)

[W4CNG]

There are plenty of places to find RF Exposure Calculators out on the web. There is really no Excuse to be dumb here. #The FCC requires you to have the calculations for your personal station if it fits into one or more specific categories. #50 watts on 2 meters into a mag mount antenna is not an issue unless the whip is taped to your head. #I run 800 watts output into attic mounted antennas in my home on 3-30Mhz. #The uncontrolled space is 6ft. #The antenna is 4 ft off the attic floor above the 10ft second floor ceiling. #Unless you are changing the HVAC filter while I'm calling CQ there is no issue (there is a Yellow sign above at my attic access ladder). #Cell phones against your head and the cell site across the street from you are NO issue. #If you think so, get rid of your cell phone as there is too much BS pushed on the public that the answers are already known by those of us who work and Play with RADIO everyday in life.
Steve W4CNG operated, tuned, transmitted with RF power from 100mw to 100,000Watts TX Power output across the Amateur and Commercial Radio/TV spectrum and no personal medical issues.

[wa9cwx]

Helo,

Does anyone remember the problems in NYC when there was a move to use Public service frequencies in the 800 mhz or HIGHER range. As I recall, the power was in the watts range, not milliwatts. The antennas were part of the 'speaker/mike', and worn on the shirt lapel.
This was several years ago (80s??) I believe what happened was extensive eye damage to several police officers. But I simply cannot remember....maybe too much 2 FM RF bouncing around in my head...

[kc7jty]

When I took the tech written in 1995 I remember something in the study material about certain freqs (I think it was talking mainly about 2M & 440) causing different areas of the body & gut to resonate.

I scoped out the cell tower (that I'm living in) carefully yesterday and the feed lines are approx 3/4" dia coxial cable which are running through individual flexible conduit while inside the building & no conduit outside.
I talked to someone at the phone # given on the "don't go past this point" sign on the door which leads out to the roof and he said the rf is attenuated so much by my being inside the building that there's nothing to worry about.
F him...I'm gonna be concerned anyway.

[K5UJ]

<<<If you substitute the word "cigaretts" for the word "RF" you can see the folly of such philosophy.>>>


If you substitute the word "cigaretts" for the word "RF" you get a sentence with a word in it that is spelled incorrectly, and that's all.

Rob/K5UJ

[ke4pjw]

Does anyone know the power output of a PCS MTSO? I guessed 200 Watts composite and an antenna gain of 15dbi.

Take a look at what came from the RF safety calculator. Wow.

Quote[/b] ]
Average Power at the Antenna: 200.000 watts
Antenna Gain in dBi: 15.00 dBi
Distance to the Area of Interest: 50.00 feet
Frequency of Operation: 1900.000 MHz
Are Ground Reflections Calculated? Yes
Estimated RF Power Density: 0.5548 mw/cm2

Controlled Environment
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 5.00 mw/cm2
Distance to Compliance From Center of Antenna: 16.70 feet
Does the Area of Interest Appear to be in Compliance? yes

Uncontrolled Environment
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1.00 mw/cm2
Distance to Compliance From Center of Antenna: 37.29 feet
Does the Area of Interest Appear to be in Compliance? yes

[kc7jty]

What the h*ll is a PCS MTSO?

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Dec. 12 2004,19:55)]What the h*ll is a PCS MTSO?
Well my usage of the terms was probably wrong because I don't work in that industry.

Personal Communications Service: an American generic term for a mass-market mobile phone service, emphasizing personal communication, independent of the technology used to provide it.

Mobile Telephone Switching Office: The central computer that connects a wireless phone call to the public telephone network. The MTSO controls the entire system's operations, including monitoring calls, billing and handoffs.

[ni7n]

I started reading the posts here, but then I got to the book one person posted.. #Then I realized what a waste of time it was. #There will always be 2 sides. #You can take two scientist of equal caliber, that can totally disagree with each other, and have the data to back themselves up. #Tomatoes are bad for you, Tomatoes are good for you. #blaw blaw blaw
True, Precautions must be taken with RF, but I would worry more about the health hazards of eating at McDonalds that answering my phone.
I know that this is a little bit off topic, but I think it fits. #Check out this web sight: DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/)
I bet that if I worked at it, I could find a lot of people to help fight DHMO. #Can you figure out what it is?

KC7MXX

[KC8RWN]

All this makes for some very interesting reading. I worked in radar in the USAF for ten (10) years, and can you imagine the RF received during this time. I never got sick or contacted any strange problems during this period.