23. A special case: mobile phones

Use of wireless communication devices, such as cellular telephones, is increasing dramatically. Presently (May 1999), more than 300 million cellular phones are in use worldwide. For years, annual growth rates in number of subscribers have been 30 – 50 %. No wonder, as these devices provide immeasurable benefits to mankind.

Widespread use of cell phones and other types of handheld wireless communication devices has led to increased concerns about the long term health effects, notably cancer of the brain, degenerative conditions and brain function. With this new technology, large numbers of humans for the first time in history are applying a strong microwave radiation emitter right next to their brains. The issue of health hazards associated with cell phone radiation first came to widespread public attention in 1993, when a Florida man appeared on a popular TV talk show to claim that his wife’s brain cancer had been caused by the radiation from her cell phone.

It is scientifically established that the electromagnetic emissions of cell phones are capable of significant biological tissue interactions.
Cell phones emit two types of EMF:

  • From the antenna, cell phones emit microwaves (MW) structured according to a modulation scheme which can be analogue (continuous wave with speech-modulated amplitude, being phased out quickly in most countries), or digital; there exist several types of digital schemes, most of them emitting the microwave in pulses per second (pps) such as GSM (217 Hz pps), TDMA (50 Hz pps), Iridium (11 Hz pps), iDEN (22 Hz pps). CDMA is another type of digital system using FM modulation in a band which is narrow compared to the carrier wave.

  • From the circuitry in the phone body and the battery, powering the MW emissions from the antenna, digital mobile phones emit ELF fields pulsing or oscillating as a function of the modulation scheme of the MW.

Fig. 25: Digital cell phone emitting microwaves from antenna and ELF pulses from phone body.
Experimental evidence of significant biological effects induced by both MW and ELF similar to such fields as emitted from mobile phones has met criteria of scientific consistency and repeatability. Biological effects occur at every level of the organizational hierarchy of living organisms. They include the most basic cellular mechanisms such as ionic movements, through enzymatic responses and metabolism, to regulatory processes in cell growth. Physical and biophysical studies have evaluated sensitivities to ELF and ELF amplitude modulated RF/MW fields, with little or no evidence that observed responses relate directly or indirectly to cell or tissue heating.

The MW output from the antenna of the phones vary somewhat, usually it is within the region of 0.5-1.0 W, giving specific absorption rates (SAR) of up to 0.5 W/Kg. This is well below the official "safety" standards which vary somewhat from one country to another – the US ANSI/IEEE applicable standard is 1.6 W/Kg. However, the problem is that these safety standards are meaningless according to the latest research, showing that the induction of biological effects from EMFs have little to do with energy absorption. Research has shown significant induced effects at energy absorption rates tens of thousands of times below the "safety" limits. Presently, it is totally unclear whether it is at all possible to establish any relevant "safety" limits – what is "safe" to one person may turn out to be totally unsafe to another person, and nobody will know the individual long term health consequences until it is too late.

The ELF output from the body of digital phones usually is around 10-20 mG with peak values up to around 50 mG, well above the 2 mG level believed by many scientists, and the Swedish authorities as well, to be the limit above which the health risks compared to non-exposed conditions become significantly increased.
Laboratory studies have shown that there are actually three factors contributing to the ability of cell phone emissions to induce potentially adverse biological effects:
  1. Continuous wave (CW) microwaves have been shown to have the ability to induce biological effects;
  2. ELF-modulated microwaves have been show to induce biological effects even more effectively than CW microwaves;
  3. ELF fields have been shown to induce biological effects.

Cell phones using the CDMA digital modulation scheme might have a slight advantage over other digital modulation types, as the modulation uses a kind of "random" frequency modulation. However, scientists working on these issues argue that the frequency variation in CDMA is negligible compared to the frequency of the carrier wave. Therefore, biologic cells will react to CDMA emissions as if it was CW microwave radiation, and biological effects are induced, as recent research has shown.

GSM, TDMA, iDEN and Iridium all use ELF modulation schemes, transmitting the microwave from the antenna in "packages" or "bursts". This digital ELF-modulation of the microwave has been shown in some studies to produce the largest biological effects. Additionally, the current drain on the battery produces ELF-pulses equivalent to the transmission of microwave "packages". This ELF emission is in itself capable of inducing significant biological effects.

In a study not yet published (by May 1999), scientists at Stanford University and Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, have found that cellular phone radiation can triple the number of chromosome abnormalities in human blood cells [ref. 25]. This was disclosed to the magazine Microwave News (March/April 1999) by Dr. George Carlo, chairman of Wireless Technology Research (WTR), founded and sponsored by the cellular phone industry. Dr. Carlo told Microwave News "WTR has found links between cellular phone use and cancer".

Dr. Ray Tice of ILS, and Drs. Graham Hook and Don McRee of WTR, presented the results at "The 30th Annual Meeting of the Environmental Mutagen Society (EMS)" in Washington on March 29, 1999. The results showed an effect with all four cellular phone technologies tested – analogue, CDMA, TDMA and PCS. The findings were all statistically significant, all but one of them highly so.

In 1999, Swedish cancer specialist Dr. Lennart Hardell looked at brain tumor sufferers and found a connection between phone use and cancer. He found right-handed people had a two-and-a-half times higher risk of a brain tumor in the right hand side of the brain, whereas left-handed people had nearly the same elevated risk of a left-hand side brain tumor [ref. 50].

In 1997 the results of a study funded by the Australian telecommunications company Telstra showed that transgenic mice exposed to GSM cell phone signals had an almost two-and-a-half times higher risk of developing lymphatic cancer than unexposed mice [ref. 43].

In 1997, Dr. Miguel Penafiel et al. [ref. 48] found that TDMA digital cellular phone microwaves produced a significant 40 % increase in the activity of the cancer-related enzyme ODC. Continuous wave microwaves showed a less marked effect, and analogue frequency modulated phone emissions showed no significant effect.

Representatives of the cellular phone industry are still claiming that "their products are safe" or "research indicates no health risk". Claims like these are misleading the general public; the only statement that can be made is the opposite, that "there is no scientific evidence showing that cell phones carry no health risk".

Even though there is not yet scientific concensus as to the long term health consequences of EMF exposures, the body of evidence presented by scientific studies should spur substantial concern, and many scientists aware of this research state that they are cutting conversations short on their cellular phones and advice other users to do likewise.

According to a Swedish study [ref. 51] on 11,000 cell phone users in Sweden and Norway, cell phone users complain of a variety of symptoms from their use of cell phones. According to the scientists, the problems start at just 2 minutes or more on the cell phone per day.

 

EMF IssuesEMF FAQPress ArticlesScientificPress ReleasesProductsAbout EMF BioICS Website 

Back to Table of Contents