Mobile phone radiation and health: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Pinkadelica)
(Replaced content with 'cock')
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Cellphone aerial mast.jpg|right|thumb|A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony]]
'''Mobile phone radiation and health''' concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of [[mobile phone|wireless mobile telephony]] throughout the world ([[as of 2005|as of August 2005]], there were more than 2 billion users worldwide). [[Mobile phone]]s use [[electromagnetic radiation]] in the [[microwave]] range, and some<ref name = University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute>{{cite news | url = | title = Researcher sees cancer risk from mobiles (Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute) | publisher = International Herald Tribune |date= [[2008-07-24]] | accessdate = 2008-08-17}}</ref> believe this may be harmful to human health. These concerns have induced a large body of research (both [[epidemiology|epidemiological]] and experimental, in [[animal model|non-human animals]] as well as in humans). Concerns about effects on health have also been raised regarding other [[Wireless electronic devices and health|digital wireless systems]], such as data communication networks.''
The [[World Health Organization]], based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that health effects (e.g. headaches) are very unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= What are the health risks associated with mobile phones and their base stations?|accessdate=2008-01-19|date= 2005-12-05|work= Online Q&A|publisher= [[World Health Organization]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations|accessdate=2008-01-19|year= 2000|month= June|work= Fact sheet N°193|publisher= [[World Health Organization]]}}</ref> and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in October 2009.<ref>[ Health and Environment - Science Milestones<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
However, some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Information: Wie gefährlich sind Handystrahlen wirklich?|accessdate=2008-01-23|language= German|publisher= [[Pressbaum|Marktgemeinde Pressbaum]]}}</ref> France,<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Téléphones mobiles : santé et sécurité|accessdate=2008-01-19|date= 2008-01-02|publisher=Le ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports|language= French}} Lay article in {{en}} making comment at {{cite web |url=|title= France: Beware excessive cell phone use—despite lack of data|accessdate=2008-01-19 |last= Gitlin|first= Jonathan M.|date= 2008-01-03|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]}}</ref> Germany,<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= Precaution regarding electromagnetic fields |accessdate= 2008-01-19|date= 2007-12-07|publisher= Federal Office for Radiation Protection}} </ref> and Sweden<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Exponering|accessdate=2008-01-19||year= 2006|month= February|language= Swedish|publisher= Swedish Radiation Protection Authority}} </ref> recommended to their citizens measures to minimize exposure. Examples of the recommendations are:
*Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
*Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
*Do not telephone in a car without an external antenna.
However, the use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= UK consumer group: Hands-free phone kits boost radiation exposure|accessdate=2008-01-19|date= 2000-11-02|work=|publisher= [[CNN|Cable News Network]]}}</ref> However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry<ref>Manning, MI and Gabriel, CHB, SAR tests on mobile phones used with and without personal hands-free kits, SARtest Report 0083 for the DTI, July 2000 (PDF) at</ref> and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale<ref>Téléphonie mobile & santé, Report for l"Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale (Afsse), June 2005 at</ref> showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a [[ferrite bead]] onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.<ref>[ BBC News report]</ref>
==Health hazards of handsets==
[[Image:Cellphone head sar 1.png|right|thumb|Calculated specific absorbed radiation (SAR) distribution in an anatomical model of head next to a 125 mW dipole antenna. Peak SAR is 9.5 W/kg over 1 mg. (''USAF/AFRL'').]]
Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human [[head (anatomy)|head]]. The radio waves emitted by a [[GSM]] handset, can have a peak [[power (physics)|power]] of 2 [[watt]]s, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 [[watt]]s. Other digital mobile technologies, such as [[CDMA2000]] and [[Digital AMPS|D-AMPS]], use lower output power, typically below 1 watt. The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard it is following and by the regulatory agencies in each country. In most systems the cellphone and the [[base station]] check reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate for different situations such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles.
The rate at which radiation is absorbed by the human body is measured by the [[Specific absorption rate|Specific Absorption Rate]] (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the [[USA]], the [[FCC]] has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used comparisons between different measurements can not be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves.
SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.<ref>For example, two listings using the European 10 g standard: of more current models at {{cite web |url=|title= Mobile Phones UK|accessdate=2008-01-19 |work= Mobile Phones UK web site|publisher=Landmark Internet Ltd}}; of phones from 2005 and earlier at {{cite web |url=|title= The Complete SAR List For All Phones (Europe)|accessdate=2008-01-19 |publisher= On-Line-Net - Web Design & Internet Services (as}} (a listing of US phones from 2005 and earlier, using the US 1 g standard, is also available at the SARValues site)</ref>
===Thermal effects===
[[Image:Eye lens.jpeg|right|thumb|Microscope photographs of lenses incubated in organ culture conditions for 12 days. Right frame shows Control lens with no damage. Bottom frame demonstrates the effect of microwave radiation on bovine lens sutures for a total exposure of 192 cycles (1.1 GHz, 2.22 mW). Each cycle lasts 50 min followed by 10 min pause. In the absence of microwave radiation, the bubbles are generated by temperature increase to 39.5 °C during 4 h; see left frame.
Credit: IsraCast Technology News []]]One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is [[dielectric heating]], in which any dielectric material (such as [[tissue (biology)|living tissue]]) is heated by rotations of [[polar molecule]]s induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its [[temperature]] to increase by a fraction of a degree<!--Fahrenheit or Celsius?-->. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight. The brain's [[blood circulation]] is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local [[blood flow]]. However, the [[cornea]] of the eye does not have this [[temperature regulation]] mechanism and exposure of 2-3 hours' duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41°C.{{Verify source|date=June 2008}}<ref>Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, And Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz), International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Health Physics, 74(4):494-522, April 1998 at p. 505.</ref> Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones.
===Non-thermal effects===
The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate. <ref>Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?, Foster et al., Radiation Research, 162(2):219–225, August 2004. at</ref>
Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example<ref>{{cite journal |last= Glaser|first= Roland|authorlink= |coauthors= |year= 2005|month= December|title= Are thermoreceptors responsible for “non-thermal” effects of RF fields? |journal= Edition Wissenschaft |volume= |issue= 21|pages= | oclc= 179908725|id= |url= | format = PDF| publisher = Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk| location = [[Bonn]], [[Germany]]|accessdate= 2008-01-19 |quote= }}</ref>, has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of [[heat shock protein]]s in order to defend the cell against metabolic [[cell stress]] caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.
====Blood Brain Barrier effects====
Swedish researchers from [[Lund University]] (Salford, Brun, Perrson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of [[albumin]] into the brain via a permeated [[blood-brain barrier]].<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Salford| first = Leif G.| authorlink = | coauthors = Arne E. Brun, Jacob L. Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren, and Bertil R. R. Persson| year = 2003| month= June| title = Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones| journal = Environmental Health Perspectives| volume = 111| issue = 7| pages = 881–883| publisher = National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences| location = [[United States]]| issn = | pmid = 12782486| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = | id = | url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-08| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref>. Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cell <ref>Electromagnetic fields (GSM 1800) do not alter blood-brain barrier permeability to sucrose in models in vitro with high barrier tightness, Franke et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):529-535 at</ref> or animal studies.<ref>Lack of effects of 1439 MHz electromagnetic near field exposure on the blood-brain barrier in immature and young rats, Kuribayashi et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):578-588 at</ref>
====Electromagnetic hypersensitivity====
{{main|Electromagnetic hypersensitivity}}
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific [[symptom]]s during and after its use; ranging from burning and [[tingling sensation]]s in the skin of the head and extremities, [[fatigue (physical)|fatigue]], sleep disturbances, [[dizziness]], loss of mental [[attention]], [[reaction time]]s and [[memory]] retentiveness, [[headache]]s, [[malaise]], [[tachycardia]] ([[heart]] palpitations), to disturbances of the [[digestive system]]. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed to [[stress]] and that current research cannot separate the symptoms from [[nocebo]] effects<ref>Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review, Röösli, Environmental Research, Available online 21 March 2008 at</ref>.
====Genotoxic effects====
Research published in 2004 by a team at the [[National and Kapodistrian University of Athens|University of Athens]] had a reduction in reproductive capacity in [[Drosophila melanogaster|fruit flies]] exposed to 6 minutes of 900&nbsp;MHz pulsed radiation for five days.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH| date = 2004-12-01| year = | month = | title = Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster| journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 23| issue = 1| pages = 29–43| publisher = Taylor & Francis| location = [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 1536-8378| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 87856304| id = {{doi |10.1081/JBC-120039350|label= <nowiki>10.1081/JBC-120039350</nowiki>}}| url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-15| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref> Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900&nbsp;MHz and 1800&nbsp;MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Chavdoula, ED; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH| date = [[January 1]], [[2007]]| year = | month = | title = Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900&nbsp;MHz and DCS 1800&nbsp;MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation | journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 26| issue = 1| pages = 33–44| publisher = Informa Healthcare| location = [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 1536-8378| pmid = 17454081| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 47815878| id = {{doi |10.1080/15368370701205644|label= <nowiki>10.1080/15368370701205644</nowiki>}}| url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-14| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref> Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Chavdoula, ED; Nezis, IP; Margaritis, LH| date = [[January 10]], [[2007]]| year = | month = | title = Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation| journal = Mutation Research| volume = 626| issue = 1–2| pages = 69–78| publisher = Elsevier| location = [[Amsterdam]], [[Netherlands]]| issn = 0027-5107| pmid = 17045516| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 109920000| id = | url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-15| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = Our present results suggest that the decrease in oviposition previously reported, is due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells, induced by both types of mobile telephony radiation. Induced cell death is recorded for the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber…}}</ref>
In 1995, Lai and Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards in the journal ''Bioelectromagnetics''. <ref>
{{cite journal | last = Harrill | first = Rob | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Wake-up Call | journal = The University of Washington Alumni Magazine | volume = | issue = March 2005 | pages = | publisher = | location = | date = March 2005 | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = 2008-05-31}}</ref> Later, in December 2004, a pan-[[Europe]]an study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of [[DNA]] damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to [[chromosome]]s, alterations in the activity of certain [[gene]]s and a boosted rate of [[cell division]].<ref>{{Citation | year = 2004| title = Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods| place = [[Munich]]| publisher = VERUM Stiftung für Verhalten und Umwelt | id = | isbn = | doi = | oclc = | url = | format= PDF| accessdate =2008-01-20}} Undertaken as [[European Union|EU]] research contract QLK4-CT-1999-01574</ref>. Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.<ref>Genetic Damage in Mammalian Somatic Cells Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiation: A Meta-analysis of Data from 63 Publications (1990–2005, Vijayalaxmi et al., Radiation Research, 169(5):561–574, May 2008 at</ref>
====Mobile phones and cancer====
In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.<ref name="Schüzetal2006">{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Schüz| first = J| authorlink = | coauthors = Jacobsen, R; Olsen, JH; Boice, JD; McLaughlin, JK; Johansen, C| date = | year = 2006| month = December| title = Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort| journal = Journal of the National Cancer Institute| volume = 98| issue = 23| pages = 1707–1713| publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]| location = | issn = 0027-8874| pmid = 17148772| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 90861566| id = {{doi |10.1093/jnci/djj464|label= <nowiki>10.1093/jnci/djj464</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors ..., and there was no trend with time since first subscription. ...CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.}}</ref> The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) consider this report as inconclusive.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Comments on the Danish cohort study on mobile phones|accessdate=2008-01-20|date= 2007-02-22|work= |language= German|publisher= Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz}}</ref>
In order to investigate the risk of cancer for the mobile phone user, a cooperative project between 13 countries has been launched called [ INTERPHONE]. The idea is that cancers need time to develop so only studies over 10 years are of interest.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= The INTERPHONE Study|accessdate=2008-01-20|publisher= [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]]}}</ref>
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
*A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years and found no evidence to support a link.<ref name="Schüzetal2006">{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Schüz| first = J| authorlink = | coauthors = Jacobsen, R; Olsen, JH; Boice, JD; McLaughlin, JK; Johansen, C| date = | year = 2006| month = December| title = Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort| journal = Journal of the National Cancer Institute| volume = 98| issue = 23| pages = 1707–1713| publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]| location = | issn = 0027-8874| pmid = 17148772| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 90861566| id = {{doi |10.1093/jnci/djj464|label= <nowiki>10.1093/jnci/djj464</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors ..., and there was no trend with time since first subscription. ...CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.}}</ref>
*A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of [[glioma]] or [[meningioma]]."<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Lönn| first = S| authorlink = | coauthors = Ahlbom, A; Hall, P; Feychting, M| date = 2005-03-15| year = | month = | title = Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk| journal = American Journal of Epidemiology| volume = 161| issue = 6| pages = 526–535| publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]| location = [[Oxford]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 0002-9262| pmid = 15746469| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 111065031| id = {{doi |10.1093/aje/kwi091|label= <nowiki>10.1093/aje/kwi091</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = }}</ref>
*A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of [[acoustic neuroma]] in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Schoemaker| first = MJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Swerdlow, AJ; Ahlbom, A; Auvinen, A; Blaasaas, KG; Cardis, E; Christensen, HC; Feychting, M; Hepworth, SJ; Johansen, C; Klaeboe, L; Lönn, S; McKinney, PA; Muir, K; Raitanen, J; Salminen, T; Thomsen, J; Tynes, T | date = 2005-10-03| year = | month = | title = Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries | journal = British Journal of Cancer| volume = 93| issue = 7| pages = 842–848 | publisher = [[Cancer Research UK]]| location = [[London]]| issn = 0007-0920| pmid = 16136046| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 111975508| id = {{doi |10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764|label= <nowiki>10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = }}</ref>
*A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Schüz| first = J| authorlink = | coauthors = Böhler, E; Berg, G; Schlehofer, B; Hettinger, I; Schlaefer, K; Wahrendorf, J; Kunna-Grass, K; Blettner, M| date = 2006-03-15| year = | month = | title = Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)| journal = American Journal of Epidemiology| volume = 163| issue = 6| pages = 512–520| publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]| location = [[Oxford]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 0002-9262| pmid = 16443797| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 108576662| id = {{doi | 10.1093/aje/kwj068|label= <nowiki>10.1093/aje/kwj068</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = }}</ref>
*A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Lahkola| first = A| authorlink = | coauthors = Auvinen, A; Raitanen, J; Schoemaker, MJ; Christensen, HC; Feychting, M; Johansen, C; Klaeboe, L; Lönn, S; Swerdlow, AJ; Tynes, T; Salminen, T| date = 2007-04-15| year = | month = | title = Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries| journal = International Journal of Cancer| volume = 120| issue = 8| pages = 1769–1775| publisher = [[John Wiley & Sons]]| location = [[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken]], [[New Jersey|NJ]]| issn = 0020-7136| pmid = 17230523| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 123857774| id = {{doi | 10.1002/ijc.22503|label= <nowiki>10.1002/ijc.22503</nowiki>}}| url =| accessdate = 2008-01-20| quote = }}</ref>
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
*Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones, that states: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours".<ref>[ Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones.] L. Hardell, K. Hansson-Mild, M. Carlberg, F. Söderqvist</ref>
*A Swedish scientific team at the [[Karolinska Institute]] conducted an [[epidemiology|epidemiological]] study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of [[acoustic neuroma]], a type of benign [[brain]] tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.<ref name="Lönn2004">{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Lönn| first = S| authorlink = | coauthors = Ahlbom, A.; Hall, P.; Feychting, M.| date = November, 2004| title = Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma| journal = Epidemiology| volume = 15| issue = 6| pages = 653–659| publisher = Lippincott Williams & Wilkins| location = | issn = 1044-3983| pmid = 15475713| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 44996510| id = {{doi |10.1097/|label= <nowiki>10.1097/</nowiki>}}| url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-08| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = Conclusions: Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration.}}</ref>
*The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radiofrequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall [[odds ratio]] (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to SAR-derived exposure. <ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Takebayashi | first = T| authorlink = | coauthors = Varsier, N; Kikuchi, Y; Wake, K; Taki, M; Watanabe, S; Akiba, S; Yamaguchi, N| date = 2008-02-05| year = | month = | title = Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study | journal = [[British Journal of Cancer]]| volume = 98| issue = 3| pages = 652–659 | publisher = [[Nature Publishing Group]]| location = [[London]]| issn = 0007-0920 | pmid = 18256587 | doi = 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214| bibcode = | oclc = | id = | url =| accessdate = 2008-03-12| laysummary =| laysource = [[Reuters]]| laydate = 2008-02-05| quote = ‘Using our newly developed and more accurate techniques, we found no association between mobile phone use and cancer, providing more evidence to suggest they don’t cause brain cancer,’ Naohito Yamaguchi, who led the research, said.}}</ref>
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that<ref></ref>:
*Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
*Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
*Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
*One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’<ref>[ INTERPHONE Study Results update – 7 February 2008]</ref>
{{wikinews|Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer risk}}
*A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an [[Australia|Australian]] neurosurgeon, presented an "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".<ref>
{{cite web |url=|title= Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour Public Health Advisory|accessdate=2008-04-05 |last= Khurana|first= Vini |coauthors= |date= 2008-03-20|work= |publisher=self-pub.|pages = 3-4}} Lay news article {{cite news |first= Geoffrey|last= Lean|authorlink= |coauthors= |title= Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'|url=|work= [[The Independent]]|publisher= [[Independent News & Media]]|date= 2008-03-30|accessdate=2008-04-05}}</ref> This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’<ref>[ ACRBR - FAQs & Facts<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
====Sleep and EEG effects====
Some studies have claimed to show that mobile phone signals affect sleep patterns and possibly delay sleep onset during exposure. <ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Hung| first = CS| authorlink = | coauthors = Anderson C; Horne, JA; McEvoy, P| date = 2007-06-21| year = | month = | title = Mobile phone 'talk-mode' signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset| journal = Neuroscience Letters| volume = 421| issue = 1| pages = 82–86| publisher = Elsevier Science Ireland| location = East Park, [[Ireland]]| issn = 0304-3940| pmid = 17548154| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 144640846| id = {{doi |10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027|label= <nowiki>10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027</nowiki>}}| url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | quote = }}</ref> In another clinical study, carried out by Sweden's [[Karolinska Institute]] and [[Wayne State University]] in the US, the authors concluded their research suggested an association between RF exposure and adverse effects on sleep quality within certain sleep stages, though participants were unable to determine better than chance if they had been exposed to actual radiation or sham exposure.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Arnetz| first = BB| authorlink = | coauthors = Akerstedt, T; Hillert, L; Lowden, A; Kuster, N; Wiholm, C| date = | year = 2007| month = | title = The Effects of 884&nbsp;MHz GSM Wireless Communication Signals on Self-reported Symptom and Sleep (EEG)- An Experimental Provocation Study| journal = | volume = 3| issue = 7| pages = 1148–1150| publisher = Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium| location = [[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts|MA]]| issn = 1931-7360| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = | id = {{doi |10.2529/PIERS060907172142|label= <nowiki>1010.2529/PIERS060907172142</nowiki>}}| url =| language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary =| laysource = [[BBC]]| laydate = 2008-01-21| quote = Our results suggest that RF exposure under these conditions is associated with adverse effects on sleep quality within certain sleep stages.}}</ref> The [[United Kingdom|UK]] [[National Health Service]] criticized the research because of the small sample size used, and because of the 53% of participants who reported sensitivity to mobile use, a proportion unlikely to be representative of the general population. The NHS also criticized the press for inaccurate reporting of the study.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Mobile effect on sleep|accessdate=2008-01-22 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= 2008-01-21|work= Behind the Headlines|publisher= [[National Health Service]]}}</ref>
==Health hazards of base stations==
Another area of worry about effects on the population's health have been the radiation emitted by [[cell site|base station]]s (the antennas on the surface which communicate with the phones), because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand due to the [[inverse-square law|attenuation of power with the square of distance]], field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna. Base station emissions must comply with ICNIRP guidelines of a maximum power density of 4.5 W/m² (450 [[microwatt]]s/cm<sup>2</sup>) for 900&nbsp;MHz and 9 W/m² (900 microwatts/cm<sup>2</sup>) for 1800&nbsp;MHz.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Exposures from Base Stations|accessdate=2008-01-31|work= Mobile Telephony and Health|publisher= [[Health Protection Agency]]|quote= Average exposures were found to be 0.002% of the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and at no location was exposure found to exceed 0.2% of the guidelines.}}</ref>
These guidelines are set for short term heating, which is the only understood mechanism of electromagnetic fields on biological tissue. The ICNIRP guidelines are distrusted by some.{{Fact|date=June 2008}}
Several surveys have found increases of symptoms depending upon proximity to electromagnetic sources such as mobile phone base stations. A 2002 survey study by Santini ''et al.'' in [[France]] found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who reported that they were living within {{convert|300|m|ft|0}} of [[GSM]] cell towers in rural areas, or within {{convert|100|m|ft|0|abbr=on}} of base stations in urban areas. Fatigue, headache, sleep disruption and loss of memory were among the symptoms reported.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Santini| first = R| authorlink = | coauthors = Santini, P; Danze, JM; LeRuz, P; Seigne, M| date = | year = 2003| month = January| title = Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations| journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 22| issue = 1| pages = 41–49| publisher = Informa Healthcare| location = [[London]]| issn = 1536-8378| doi = 10.1081/JBC-120020353| bibcode = | oclc = 88891277| id = | url =| accessdate = 2008-02-09| laysummary = | quote = }}</ref>
Similar results have been obtained with [[GSM]] cell towers in [[Spain]],<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Navarro | first = Enrique A| authorlink = | coauthors = Segura, J; Portolés, M; Gómez-Perretta de Mateo, Claudio| date = | year = 2003| month = December| title = The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain| journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 22| issue = 2| pages = 161–169| publisher = Informa Healthcare| location = [[London]]| issn = 1536-8378| doi = 10.1081/JBC-120024625| bibcode = | oclc = 89106315| id = | url =| accessdate = 2008-02-09| laysummary = | quote = }}<BR>{{cite book |title= Biological effects of EMFs : Proceedings, Kos, Greece, 4-8 October 2004, 3rd International Workshop | chapter = The Microwave Syndrome: Further Aspects of a Spanish Study| chapterurl =|last= Oberfeld |first= Gerd|authorlink= |coauthors= Navarro, Enrique A; Portoles, Manuel; Maestu, Ceferino; Gomez-Perretta, Claudio |editor= Kostarakis, P|year= 2004|publisher= Electronics, Telecom & Applications Laboratory, Physics Dept., University of Ioannina : Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”|location= [[Ioannina]], [[Greece]]|isbn= 9602331526 | url = |pages= }}</ref> [[Egypt]],<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Abdel-Rassoul| first = G| authorlink = | coauthors = Abou El-Fateh, O; Abou Salem, M; Michael, A; Farahat, F; El-Batanouny, M; Salem, E| date = | year = 2007| month = March| title = Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations| journal = NeuroToxicology| volume = 28| issue = 2| pages = 434–40| publisher = Elsevier Science| location = [[New York City|New York]], [[New York|NY]]| issn = 0161-813X| pmid = 16962663| doi = 10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012| bibcode = | oclc = 138574974| id = | url =| format = PDF| accessdate = 2008-02-10| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref> [[Poland]]<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Bortkiewicz| first = A| authorlink = | coauthors = Zmyslony, M; Szyjkowska, A; Gadzicka, E| date = | year = 2004| month = | title = Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review| journal = Medycyna pracy| volume = 55| issue = 4| pages = 345–352| publisher = Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich| location = [[Warsaw]]| issn = 0465-5893| pmid = 15620045| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 108011911| id = BL Shelfmark: 5536.020000 | url =| language = Polish| format = | accessdate = 2008-02-10| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref> and [[Austria]].<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Hutter| first = H-P| authorlink = | coauthors = H Moshammer, P Wallner, M Kundi| date = [[May 1]], [[2006]]| title = Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations| journal = Occupational and Environmental Medicine| volume = 63| issue = 5| pages = 307–313| publisher = the BMJ Publishing Group| location = [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 1351-0711| pmid = 16621850| doi = 10.1136/oem.2005.020784| bibcode = | oclc = 41236398| id = | url =| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-07| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref> It is, however, important to note that these surveys do not show statistically significant [[clustering]] or [[causality]] and those complaining of adverse symptoms may be displaying the [[nocebo]] effect, unless this is controlled in the study. There are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.<ref>Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations, Neubauer et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 28(3):224-230, March 2007 at</ref>
However, a study conducted at the [[University of Essex]] and another in Switzerland<ref>UMTS Base Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance Regel et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(8):August 2006 at</ref> concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Eltiti| first = S| authorlink = | coauthors = Wallace, D; Ridgewell, A; Zougkou, K; Russo, R; Sepulveda, F; Mirshekar-Syahkal, D; Rasor, P; Deeble, R; Fox, E| date = | year = 2007| month = November| title = Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study| journal = Environ Health Perspectives| volume = 115| issue = 11| pages = 1603–1608| publisher = | location = | issn = 0091-6765| pmid = 18007992 | doi = 10.1289/ehp.10286| bibcode = | oclc = 183843559| id = | url =| language = | format = | accessdate = 2008-02-10| laysummary = | laysource = Study finds health symptoms aren’t linked to mast emissions [[University of Essex]]| laydate = 2007-07-25| quote = }}</ref> The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,<ref>{{cite news |first= James|last= Randerson|authorlink= |title= Research fails to detect short-term harm from mobile phone masts|url=,,2134778,00.html|work= [[The Guardian]]|publisher= [[Guardian Media Group]]|date= 2007-07-26|accessdate=2008-02-11|quote=Prof Fox estimates that there is a 30% chance that the experiment missed a real effect because of the smaller numbers.}}</ref> although electrical sensitivity lobby groups have praised the study as a whole, <ref>{{cite news |title= Phone mast allergy 'in the mind'|url=|work= |publisher= [[BBC]]|date= 2007-07-25|accessdate=2008-02-11 }}</ref> and these criticisms were answered by the authors.
As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including [[3G]] towers which work with larger bandwidths.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
Many measurements and experiments have shown that transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern [[2G]] antennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous{{Fact|date=December 2007}}.
Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.<ref> page 37</ref>. This recommendation was modified in 2003 <ref>Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport à l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, 21 March 2003 at</ref>to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 <ref>Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport du groupe d’experts, l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, April 2005 at</ref>expert report.
==Occupational health hazards==
Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etc. may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, because that would affect the network, so people work near "live" antennas.
A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high [[RF]] radiation levels; studies including [[radar]] laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Moulder| first = JE| authorlink = | coauthors = Erdreich, LS; Malyapa, RS; Merritt, J; Pickard, WF; Vijayalaxmi| date = | year = 1999| month = May| title = Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection?| journal = Radiation Research| volume = 151| issue = 5| pages = 513–531| publisher = [[Academic Press]]| location = [[New York City|New York]]| issn = 0033-7587| pmid = 10319725| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 119963820| id = | url =| language = | format = | accessdate = 2008-02-10| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref>
==Safety standards and licensing==
In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection home page|accessdate=2008-01-07 |format= |work= }}</ref>
Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.
Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.
The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineering (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".
===Evolution of Safety Standards===
The following is a brief summary of the wireless safety standards, which have become stricter over time.
* '''1966''': The [[ANSI]] C95.1 standard adopted the standard of '''10 mW/cm<sup>2</sup>''' (10,000 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>) based on thermal effects.
* '''1982''': The [[IEEE]] recommended further lowering this limit to '''1 mW/cm<sup>2</sup>''' (1,000 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>) for certain frequencies in 1982, which became a standard ten years later in 1992 (see below).
* '''1986''': The [[National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements|NCRP]] recommended the exposure limit of '''580 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>'''.
* '''1992''': The [[ANSI]]/[[IEEE]] C95.1-1992 standard based on thermal effects used the '''1 mW/cm<sup>2</sup>''' (1,000 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>) safety limit. The [[EPA]] called this revised standard "seriously flawed", partly for failing to consider non-thermal effects, and called for the [[FCC]] to adopt the 1986 [[NCRP]] standard which was five times stricter.
* '''1996''': The [[FCC]] updated to the standard of '''580 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>''' over any 30-minute period for the 869 MHz, while still using 1mW/cm<sup>2</sup> (1,000 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>) for PCS frequencies (1850-1990 MHz).<ref>{{cite book | last = Levitt | first = B. Blake | authorlink = | title = Electromagnetic Fields | publisher = Harcourt Brace & Company | date = 1995 | location = San Diego | pages = 29-36 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }} </ref>
* '''1998''': The ICNIRP standard uses the limit of '''450 μW/cm<sup>2</sup>'''.
===Adequacy of Current Standards===
The controversial question is whether the current safety standards are adequate enough to protect the public's long-term health. A few nations have set safety limits orders lower than the ICNIRP limit. In particular, the Salzburg Resolution for Austria recommends safety limits many times lower (0.6 V/m = 0.1 microWatts/cm<sup>2</sup> for pulsed radiation.<ref>{{cite web | last = Santini | first = Roger | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = "Arguments in Favor of Applying the Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations" | work = | publisher = | date = 2002 | url = | format = PDF | doi = | accessdate = 2008-05-30 }} </ref>
In the [[USA]], a small number of [[personal injury]] [[lawsuits]] have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such as [[Motorola]]<ref>[ Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929]</ref>, [[NEC Corporation|NEC]], [[Siemens AG|Siemens]] and [[Nokia]], on the basis of allegations of causation of [[brain cancer]] and death. In US federal court, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a [[Daubert standard|Daubert hearing]], to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In one case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer, and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff’s cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs; accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts; and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.<ref>{{cite court |litigants= Christopher Newman, et al. v Motorola, Inc., et al. |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= United States District Court for the District of Maryland |date= |url= |quote= Because no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation has been proffered by the plaintiffs, as explained below, the defendants’ motion will be granted and the plaintiffs’ motion will be denied. }}</ref>
==Precautionary principle==
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the [[precautionary principle]] could be voluntarily adopted in this case.<ref>{{cite web |url=|title= Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health - Cautionary Policies|accessdate=2008-02-01|year= 2000|month= March|work= World Health Organization Backgrounder|publisher=[[World Health Organization]]}}</ref> It follows the recommendations of the [[European Community]] for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are [[prudent avoidance principle]] and [[ALARA]] (''As Low as Reasonably Achievable''). Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern<ref>The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust, Wiedemann et al., Journal of Risk Research, 9(4):361 - 372, June 2006 at </ref>. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with ALARA levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and [[earphone]] technologies such as [[Bluetooth]] headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.
==See also==
* [[Bioelectromagnetism]]
* [[Mobile phones and driving safety]]
* [[Electromagnetic radiation and health]]
* [[Wireless electronic devices and health]] (computer data wireless)
* [[Specific absorption rate]]
* [[Radiation biology]]
* [[Electrical sensitivity]]
* [[Non-ionizing radiation]]
==External links==
* [ WHO International EMF Program]
* [ International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)]
* [ Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), UK]
* [ The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS)]
* [ FDA Cell Phone Facts]
* [ FCC Radio Frequency Safety]
* [ Medline Plus, by US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health (NIH)]
* [ GSM Association: Health]
* [ MMF Mobile Manufacturers Forum]
* [ A Biomedical Science and Engineering Clearinghouse on Electric and Magnetic Fields]. EMF-Link.
* [ Microwave News] Reporting on electromagnetic fields and radiation since 1981.
* [ EMF Portal] International EMF Information Source and Database of Scientific Literature on Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, Aachen University Hospital, Germany.
* [ Research Association for Radio Applications (FGF)] German non-profit organization, that funds scientific research on potential environmental effects of electromagnetic fields. Broad offer of information.
{{Mobile phones}}
[[Category:Public health]]
[[fa:اثرات امواج تلفن همراه بر سلامت انسان]]
[[he:קרינת טלפון סלולרי ובריאות]]

Revision as of 10:58, 2 October 2008