Most of us were awakened this morning by the alarm on a mobile phone sitting by the bedside. We fed microwave-heated milk to our children and rushed off to work, where we complete an eight-hour shift on a computer and spend hours on our cellphones talking to clients and colleagues.
From hairdryers to DVD players, our lives are intertwined with electromagnetic radiation. We can't see it, and we can't smell it, but it's always there. Even if we choose to live a life away from the city and not use any electrical devices, we are exposed to the electromagnetic radiation from the devices around us. There is no escape from it, yet most of us take precautions to minimize exposure to this “invisible and insidious enemy.”
How serious is the threat from electromagnetic radiation? Is it something we should all worry about, and to what extent?
According to experts, the biggest contributor to electromagnetic radiation is the radon gas present within the building blocks of our homes, such as stone and earth. Other obvious sources of radiation are the sun and water. Before you cancel your summer holiday in the Mediterranean or pour your tap water down the drain, it is important to note there are two types of electromagnetic radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing.
Ionizing radiation sources include the X-rays commonly used in medical imaging and curing cancer. This radiation is the dangerous type we should all avoid if possible. However, much of the debate on electromagnetic radiation concerns the non-ionizing type. Television sets, remote controls, wireless communication equipment, and microwave ovens are examples of sources of non-ionizing radiation. Because this type is believed not to be powerful enough to free electrons from matter, it is unlikely to cause cancer or DNA damage. There is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise.
However, it is known that non-ionizing radiation has some temporary adverse effects on the brain and sensory system. Such radiation can affect our memory and response functions and cause headaches, exhaustion, and loss of sleep.
Base stations located on roof tops and near residential areas also raise serious health concerns. Given that ionizing-radiation frequency is six orders of magnitude higher than the non-ionizing emissions of base stations, we can breathe a sigh of relief that they cannot cause much harm. Furthermore, base station antennas have high directivity, which means they are designed to not radiate behind or underneath them. Therefore, residents under the roof are safe. However, it is important to install base stations at a safe distance from people and buildings outside their emission zone. In a rural area, such safety criteria can easily be met. But within cities, where the cell sizes are small and there is a high density of base station installations, I am not sure how protected we all are.
The health effects of mobile phones will remain a popular topic until solid scientific evidence is available and widely accepted by the public. According to researchers, mobile phone radiation manifests itself in two ways: thermal and nonthermal. The thermal effect is when the radiation is absorbed by the human body and converted to heat, which causes the body temperature to rise. This is normally regulated by the circulation of blood. Statistically, an increase in temperature from mobile phone use is as low as 0.1 C and is negligible. Our body can easily regulate this. It has also been shown that the effect of radiation on the brain is 50 percent less for adults than it is for children.
Do mobile phones cause cancer? Considering the low levels of non-ionizing radiation they emit, DNA damage is unlikely to occur, so cancer cannot develop. However, despite studies conducted in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan, there's no evidence to the contrary, either.
Since most men carry mobile phones in their pockets, a possible link to infertility has been raised. Though some studies have identified a 30 percent decrease in sperm count and a 40 percent reduction in sperm motility, further research is definitely needed before jumping to any conclusions. However, I am sure most men reading this will be careful not to carry their phone in their trousers anymore. It does not hurt to be safe, right?
Given our lifestyle, I think it is safe to say that eliminating electromagnetic radiation from our lives is unlikely. However, sensible use seems to be the way to minimize any potential harmful effects.
Well, as Kevin pointed out. Alot of people will capitalize off of the hype and fear. It's probably the same fols doing the studies that are selling the anti-radiation products and warning you of hold cell phones so close to your head, etc.
Who's done those studies? I look into it quite often and haven't found a study that, without a doubt, shows that cellular signals can have a big impact on humans. Not just electromagnetic waves, radiofrequency.
Let me translate: "Nevertheless, in all the studies the numbers of long-term users and heavy users are limited, obviating any firm conclusion." means - Hey, we didn't get the results we were looking for but, we're sure to get those results as soon as we can study people with more exposure.
Otherwise, I have to agree with you. I can't make heads or tails of environmental change due to CO2 emissions because it is an almost entirely political subject.
I never said microwave radiation is good for you. Education is the real answer. We know high levels of microwave radiation will kill you in minutes yet, how much is "safe" is not so clear. Being aware of what we truthfully know and don't know prepares a consumer to make a choice that makes sense to them. An informed consumer would probably be more interested in their exposure level than to the color of the case.
Ah, you sly devil. You left out the part that said,
"Nevertheless, in all the studies the numbers of long-term users and heavy users are limited, obviating any firm conclusion."
Such is the world of partisan politics (which includes the world of science, regardless of how much scientists claim to float rather than walk).
The smart consumer will examine conflicting claims, weigh carefully the motivations of claim-makers (such as HUGE PROFITS!), and employ prudent avoidance of things like microwave communication devices that heat up your brain like a soggy hamburger with extra pickles from Mickey D's.
You've given me a lot of material to review and evaluate and I can't give you a complete and proper response at this time.
However, the first study you site "Christensen, et al., Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors. A population-based, incident case–control study, Neurology 64 (2005)1189–1195," says, right up front, in the Abstract: "Conclusion: The results do not support an association between use of cellular telephones and risk for glioma or meningioma.", find it here: http://www.altcancerweb.com/osteosarcoma/cancer-risk/cell-telephones-brain-tumor-risk.pdf
So, it looks like I'm using your scientists.
As about one in 4,000 people get brain cancer and considering the "conclusions" reached here http://www.ewg.org/project/2009cellphone/cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf, one of which indicated a doubling of risk for brain cancer due to cell phone use, I don't think there would be any doubt if one in 4,000 turned into one in 2,000. If the incidence of brain cancer doubled in the last 10 years I think that would make the 6:00 news around the world. Since that hasn't happened, it makes the claim appear unsupported in reality.
indicated potential damage to human health based on cell phone use?
Or maybe you mean the conclusions of some of these studies:
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2005. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup Environ Med 62(6): 390-4. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006a. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol 28(2): 509-18. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006b. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79(8): 630-9. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology: in press. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer 94(9): 1348-9; author reply 52-3. Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M. 2003. Further aspects on cellular and cordless telephones and brain tumours. Int J Oncol 22(2): 399-407.
Until a conclusive study is released, the debate will continue. I work a lot with this because working for the telecom regulator, many communities opose new base stations close to where they live, stating it causes cancer and other diseases.
We normally coordiante talks, telling them we have power limits and that those transmissions are nothing compared to other devices (microwaves, TV transmissions, etc).
Consumers are improperly discarding old phones although most of these can be recycled at a huge gain to the supply chain and the environment. Where are the recyclers?
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This