Phone Search:

One of the first QWERTY-enabled phones whose announcement was originally slotted for World Mobile Congress. Cliffsnotes: the 5730 XpressMusic is an appealing and inexpensive music playing offering...

Hands-on with Nokia N96 Sony Ericsson C905 vs Samsung INNOV8 - The Clash of Cameras Review of GSM/UMTS-handset Samsung PIXON M8800

Reviews Editorials Specifications

Handsets PDA Phones MP3 News Forum

Print this review

Safety of mobile phones. Fantasies and facts

Is it safety to use a mobile phone? This question was asked by many users hundreds of times. But the specialists couldn't give a clear answer. Today there are no scientifically proved facts of a deleterious influence of mobile phones on a living organism. All scientists agree that there is a some kind of influence, it can be detected by modern research methods, but nobody can say definitely about its nature. The scientists who carry out experiments to estimate an electromagnetic influence of phones on an organism can get only particular results, often they can't see a complete picture. Here are several examples that can illustrate the level of research works and the line of investigations.

The first example is from Finland. After a two-year study at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) focused on the influence of cellular phones on the human health the scientist made a conclusion that exposure to radiation from mobile phones had some an influence. According to Darius Leszczynski, the header of a study, it's difficult to make conclusions now because not many human reactions have been studied yet. “We know that there is some biological response. We can detect it with our very sensitive approaches, but we do not know whether it can have any physiological effects on the human brain or human body. These are not life-threatening problems but can cause a lot of discomfort. A Swedish group also suggested a possible link with Alzheimer's disease. Where the truth is I do not know”.

A term “biological response” means a behavior of a protein called hsp27 that was studied. This protein is linked to the functioning of the blood-brain barrier, a radiation from mobile increases it activity, what causes the weakening of the barrier functions and shrinking of cells. Hence, some tiny gaps appeared between the cells and the molecules which couldn't pass there before, now can easily do it. They influence an organism, which doesn't have any defense mechanism.

We are grateful to the scientists for the good scientific work but it doesn't give an answer on the question. There are millions of proteins in a human organism, not only hsp27, and there is an interaction between all of them. So this work is only a specific result. Probably it will form a basis of the new global research but nowadays it is difficult to use these data.

The second example. Many of the researchers understand that they can investigate consequences of the influence mechanism even when they don't have special instruments to identify this influence. Another words they use empirical treatment. They find volunteers and watch how long talks influence their health. Such kinds of investigations are very popular, analyses can be made with a help of ordinary medical facilities and they don't need great investments or new methods. First works appeared in 2002, it was indeed the time when all these questions were widely discussed.

Scientists of the Bristol University and a British queen's hospital carried out some experiments under the headings of Dr. Alan Preece in order to discover a short-time health effect from mobile phones. Volunteers were offered to perform several tasks in different conditions to check their cognitive ability. Participants were under the influence of microwave radiation of digital phones, analogue phones and without influence. The researchers found no significant changes in a short-term memory or reducing of concentration after 30-minute influence. Furthermore, visual tests showed that a brain reaction time even reduced under the cell-phones influence. An increase of blood flow can be cased by slight heating. A rise in temperature can be explained in different ways, either a microwave radiation itself arouse it, either blood produces specific substances as an immune protection of a human organism and it is a result of that.

In the same year MedScape published an article, where data of Sweden researchers were presented. The experiment involved 233 patients. Scientists studied a probability distribution of tumors appearance in brain areas that were usually most of all exposed to electromagnetic radiation of radiophones. A statistical analyses showed that risk for brain tumours in these areas was higher than in others. However this fact can cause alarm but it can't be a good reason to make a conclusion because 12 of 13 patients with both non-cancerous and cancerous tumours used analogue telephones with increased radiation.

So practical methods also don't make things clear. May be we'll see the results in 10 years, may be in one's old age or possibly our heirs will feel it, telecommunication is too young to say about it. There might be no consequences at all, an immune system helps humane to adapt to the environment. Today there are no facts that allow to make conclusions about how safety a phone radiation is. Lack of scientific facts causes many rumors and let one stirs the waters.

Myths and scandals

First researches were widely covered in mass media and data ambiguity causes many gossips. Newspaper reports were contrary to each other. British scientists announced that using of handsfree was harmful, they said that these devices produced a waveguide which increased a signal from antenna. In one month another research group under Australian Consumers Society disproved their results and said that handsfree reduced a level of radiation. As you see not charlatans, but usual scientists made both of these researchers. Suppose, that the methods were different and it influenced final results but nobody worried about it. A cause to claim against phone manufactures was given.

First, a claim from American doctor Chris Newman. He sued Motorola for the sum of 800$ and prosecuted the company in injuring to his health. He had a cancerous brain tumour which was diagnosed in 1998. A plaintiff confirmed that a tumour was connected with the influence of mobile phone, which he used to talk with his patients from 1992 till 1998. Chris Newman demanded a compensation for damage(100 million dollars) and a compensation for the loss of health (700 million dollars). Motorola took this indictment easy. Today we don't know anything about this case. The sides possibly came to an agreement or the case hasn't been completed yet. But this example showed that it was not easy to make money using these subject. Next attempt was more sophisticated.

A group of lawyers decided to bring an accusation against mobile phones manufacturers (summer, 2002), they advocated the consumers side. This initial group wasn't going to prove that all phones were harmful. They'd like to show that usage of handsfree reduces a level of radiation and all phones must be supplied with this accessory. No comments were from the side of manufacturers. Taking into account a severe competition on the market such case doesn't play into manufacturer's hand. They can't lose a case because there are no scientific evidences but they can breathe on the good name. It was easier to complete the case in order it wouldn't become widely known. So this claim was just a good marketing action.

Not only lawyers try to benefit by the idea of dangerous phones but also many other small companies. You can buy magical stickers protected you from phone “radiation” along with different remedies for adiposity, impotence and alopecia in TV shops. The word "radiation" is stressed to frighten a potential buyer. But none of the stickers, covers and other devices is able to protect you from radiation nowadays. An effective protection is possible when the phone doesn't work but the principle of the cellular phone demands a radiation, otherwise the connection is impossible. A reducing of signal causes an increasing of transmitter's power. Hence the phone's influence increasing instead reducing.

Here is the example of such product from the company Wild NRG. The company declares that created cases CellBlock can provide an outstanding protection against exposure to harmful radiation. According to Wild NRG, they used special polymers which reduce and block electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation. One can find a huge amount of cases of different colours (Camouflage, Leopard-Suede, Python-Embossed, Crocodile-Embossed, Dalmatian, Graffiti-Suede, Black Carmel, Lizard-Embossed, Luggage, etc.) that are suitable to an endless number of models. A price of such case hesitates between 79,99$ and 129,99$ and depends on the colour, not on the protective characteristics. Isn't not strange?

You can also buy a special caps to protect yourself from the radiation. So they use the subject of phone radiation to make a profit.

I'd like to say once again that today there is no effective protection from the phone radiation, otherwise it wouldn't work. (By the way there is no universal solvent, otherwise it would dissolve any container). An indirect evidence of this statement was an accusation of Federal Transport Commission of USA (FTC) against two companies, which supplied mobile phones manufacturers with anti-radiation screens to reduce a radiation level. A cause was an advertisement of such devices as WaveShield 1000 from Comstar Communications and NoDanger and SafeTShield from Stock Value 1. It was said that they can protect a consumer from the radiation by 97-99%. It was ascertained that these screens increased the radiation because a power of the transmitter was increasing.

An American consumer magazine (Good Housekeeping Magazine) made an examination and proved that the products didn't have protective properties. After that a claim appeared.

In my opinion all these companies play on the feelings of consumers. Don't be so naive! I hope that above-listed facts force you to look at this problem on the other hand.

Real facts, manufacturers actions, SAR.

Manufactures can't be indifferent to the problem of the phones safety. On the one hand they couldn't stop discussing this question, on the other - they had to sell their production. It was necessary to find an alternative decision. As a result main players expedite passing new standards of phone radiation. At the same time in several countries it was decided to toughen radiation standards.

By the way, a unit of radiation level is called SAR (Specific Absorption Rates). SAR levels are usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram of tissue (W/kg). It shows how much radiation is absorbed by a unit mass of a biological body.

Till 2001 legally fixed SAR level was rather high. For example, the highest rate in UK was 10 W/kg. In reality produced phones radiated less and it wasn't necessary to change phones construction when new standards were passed. So manufacturers made all their bests to formulate new demands because in this case they couldn't have customers complaints. They produced an image to themselves but they also helped to organize an operating and measuring system which became very effective. Today none of the manufacturers can sell a mobile phone in USA and in Europe, if SAR level isn't marked in the manual-guide to this phone. A maximal SAR level in Europe is 2 W/kg (measured in 10g. of tissue) and 1.6 W/kg in Australia and USA (measured in 1 g. of tissue). Different methods of measuring (a mass of tissue sample) don't influence greatly on the final result. It is similar in both cases.

The less SAR level the less a phone radiation and the less a phone influences our organism. It's interesting that a mannequin's head that is identical to a man's head is used for laboratory examinations. In this case a surface exposed to radiation is the largest. There is a special liquid inside the head, which resembles human brain by physical-chemical characteristics. Several zones and different position of phone near the ear are used for measurings . Besides all phone modes, all functions are measured too.

On the photo above you can see a head exposed to radiation.

When you choose a phone you can pay your attention to SAR level but most of the phones have similar SAR levels.

Conclusion

Results of public opinion polls show that a vast majority of phones users thought that handsets are harmful to health but handsets are very convenient that is why they continue to use them. Nowadays there are no proved facts, which show that harmful consequences of phones usage are absent but there are also no evidences which confirm that phones are safety. So it's better to be careful in this situation and observe several simple rules to minimize a possible influence.

If you have a possibility to carry the phone in a bag, please, do it. Most of girls follow this rule. Unfortunately men hold the opinion that the phone must be carried on the belt.
Don't sleep with the phone, it's not useful. Try to put it at a range of at least 20-30 cm from yourself. Using a feature of alarm-clock , don't put a handset under a pillow.
Bluetooth usage enables you to leave the phone at a range of 10 m. And a radiation from Bluetooth (a really safety standard) is less than the phone influence. If this device is beyond your pocket means, use simple handsfree.
When you are in the car (while a fast movement) a transmitter's power is approximately maximal and it's better to use a car kit. It's handy and rather safety.
Don't attempt to open the phone or turn off the antenna. You can break the settings and increase a transmitter's power in the standby mode.
Use an external antenna where it is possible. It reduces a transmitter's power increasing a signal and hence, an influence on the organism reduces too.
Analogue standards (NMT450i and AMPS) have the greatest influences on the human organism. It connected with a large power of base stations and phones transmitters. Modern digit standards such as GSM 1800 and CDMA influence less. So when you choose an operator remember it.
The phone's safety doesn't depend on the price. But as a rule more expensive models have advanced component parts and can provide a work under small transmitter's power. But the differences are not large, only 1-2%.
Phones with the maximal power have a maximal influence on the human organism. For example, Motorola 8900 had a very good receiving. But after 5 minutes of talking you could feel that your ear became warmer and it was only an external effect.

And be reasonable while observing these recommendations. You can't protect yourself from everything. It's very easy to be frightened when you don't know the facts. I hope that this article helped you to decide main questions concerning the problem of phones safety.

Links:

FAQ addressed the issue of whether using of mobile phones are great risk to human health. The most renewable resource concerning discussed problem. Compiled by John Maulder.
A list of SAR levels for the most of the modern phones.
Cellular Phone Health. This site is devoted to the safety but I'm afraid to trust it, there are many advertisements of “protective” devices.
Mobile Phone Health Hazards. An interesting set of articles concerning the topic of safety. Unfortunately now it's not renewable.
FCC tells about phones safety, there is a find option by SAR level (only for USA).

Eldar Murtazin (eldar@mobile-review.com)
Translated by Maria Sennikova(maria@mobile-review.com)

Published — 13 september 2002.

Have something to add?! Write us... eldar@mobile-review.com

News:

• [ 03-07 18:14 ]Duck Quack Ringtone Interrupts Obama Speech

• [ 03-07 17:54 ]Samsung Launches First Nightvision Cameraphone

• [ 01-07 18:51 ]UK Palm Pre Being Announced on 7th July?

• [ 01-07 12:42 ]Vodafone to Return to Carphone Warehouse

• [ 29-06 20:08 ]Firefox Coming to Android?

• [ 29-06 19:35 ]Micro-USB Charger Standard Gains 90% Manufacturer Support

• [ 25-06 19:28 ]Apple Pulls Nudie App - No More Boobies for $1.99

• [ 25-06 17:06 ]First Adult App in the App Store: $1.99 to See Boobies