MOBILE phones CAN cause brain tumours, according to a landmark court ruling.
Italian businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.
Italian businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.
By Martin BanksÂ -Â 17th October 2011 – Â The Parliament.com
A conference in parliament heard that repeated exposure to electromagnetic fields from devices such as mobile phones can pose a cancer risk.
The seminar, ‘Early warnings: the case of mobile phone and head tumours,’ heard how the European institutions ‘can act’ to help counter the carcinogenic risk caused by mobile phones.Â The event was co-hosted by MEPs Kriton Arsenis, MichÃ¨le Rivasi and FrÃ©dÃ©rique Ries.Â Arsenis, a Greek deputy, said that ‘past failures’ to react to early warnings had led to ‘public health tragedies’.
The Socialist member said, “Two scientific studies have indicated the first early warnings on the carcinogenic effects of the use of mobile phones particularly by children and pregnant women.Â ”In many cases in the past, our failure to react to early warnings led to public health tragedies.
“Based on the precautionary principle, the commission should immediately inform the public on ways to reduce exposure to mobile phone radiation, reduce the radiation exposure limits and encourage independent scientific studies to further examine these first warnings.”Â His demand was enthusiastically endorsed by Rivasi, a French Greens deputy, who said, “We are now beyond the alert phase regarding the abusive use of mobile phones.
“Brain tumours have been definitively, scientifically proved. From now on, this is no longer the principle of precaution that must be applied, but the prevention principle.
“It is now time to act. European recommendations have to be revised and research must be developed on the other effects of electromagnetic waves on living beings.
“In addition to cancer or childhood leukaemia, some studies show the link between exposure to these radiations and Alzheimer’s disease, sleep disorders or psychological problems.”Â The conference also heard from Ries, a Belgian ALDE member and parliament’s 2009 rapporteur on “concerns about the health effects of electromagnetic fields”.Â She said, “The limits of public exposure to electromagnetic fields haven’t changed in Europe since 1999. At this time, wireless devices were not used everyday.Â ”We cannot wait or delay these decisions until later.”Â Elsewhere, Lennart Hardell, professor of oncology at the university hospital of Ã–rebro in Sweden, told the conference, “Our studies showed an increased risk for malignant brain tumours and acoustic neuroma and use of mobile or cordless phones.Â ”The risk increased with latency time and cumulative use. Highest risk was found in the group with first use of a wireless phone before 20 years of age.”
Further comment came from David Gee, European environment agency senior advisor on science, policy and emerging issues, who told the conference that mobile phones have “numerous social, economic and even environmental benefits”.Â He went on, “However, there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about whether mobile phone use increases the risk of head cancers.
“We recommend using the precautionary principle to guide policy decisions in cases like this.Â ”This means that although our understanding is incomplete, this should not prevent policymakers from taking preventative action.”
Last week there was a report in Journal of Andrology stated that phone radiation can reduce sperm count and damage sperm quality.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) in the UK has a document about carcinogens in the workplace ( http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/occupationalcancer.pdf).
This offers guidance for all Trade Unions in the UK. In it they say Â‘trade unions believe the aim should be to remove all exposure to any known or suspected carcinogen in the workplace .Â’ Â‘Caution should be used to prevent exposure to substances in Group 2B .Â’ Â‘The regulations are clear: that the first aim should always be to remove the hazard .Â’ Â‘Management Regulations and COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) lay down clear principles forprevention that must be followed when deciding what to do about a potential hazard. This means the first step must always be, where possible, to remove the hazard altogether Â– removing any cancer-causing hazards from the workplace .Â’
Â‘There is a legal requirement on employers to only use a carcinogen if there is no reasonable alternative .Â’
Where does the law stand on thisÂ…. ?
The Health and Safety at Work Act makes it clear there is a legal responsibility on every employer to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health of their employees. Italso states that employers must provide information, instruction, training and supervision to ensure their safety.
The regulations also state that the employer must identify and then introduce preventative and protective measures needed to improve workplace health and safety. The regulations are clear: that the first aim should always be to remove the hazard. Unfortunately employers often forget this and see their role as controlling hazards. The
Management Regulations and COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) lay down clear principles for prevention that must be followed when deciding what to do about a potential hazard. This means the first step must always be, where possible, to remove the hazard altogether Â– removing any cancer-causing hazards from the workplace.
It is only once management has tried to do this that they should look at whether they have to control the hazard. And even then they must follow a certain order. First, the employer should try to reduce the risk through using a less hazardous process. This means changing working practices so that the worker is not exposed to the hazard. Many employers do not consider substitution if there is any additional cost involved in substituting a less harmful chemical, but the law is quite clear Â– if substitution is Â“reasonably practicableÂ”, even if it is more expensive, then it must be used.
Regarding mobile phonesÂ – they are categorised by the World Health Organisation as Group 2B (probably carcinogenic to humans). Therefore it follows that employers ensure that staff minimise their exposure to mobile phone radiation. With many companies now having the policy of removing land lines in favour of mobiles we are fast moving to a situation of companies increasing their employees exposure to the microwave radiation emitted from
mobile phones. It make sense for employers to take steps now to limit employees exposure in a number of basic ways.
1)Â Â Â Encourage landline use instead of mobiles
2)Â Â Â Use a low radiation headset such as air2hear (www.air2hear.co.uk)
3)Â Â Â Use phone hands-free Â– keeping it as away from the body
4)Â Â Â Minimise call duration
DonÂ’t Worry Be Happy, Says ICNIRP
Published by Microwave News 6th July
The battle over Interphone continues. This time it’s in full public view as key players publish papers detailing where they stand on cell phone tumor risks. There haven’t been any big surprises since their opinions have long been known. Yet, the diametrically opposing views have led to conflicting stories in the media as each new study is released.
The latest chapter came late last week when the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) announced that its epidemiologists believe that phones are safe. They conceded that they couldn’t be certain, though they sounded as if they were nearly there. This is their bottom line: “The trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use causes brain tumors.” The commentary was published in Environmental Health
The BBC was in such a rush to announce the news that it was willing to break the journal’s embargo. “Mobile Phones
‘Unlikely’ to Cause Cancer,” ran its headline. Just a month earlier, the same reporter wrote an item on the findings of another group Â—a larger one assembled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). That expert panel had a very
different message: RF radiation from cell phones is a possible cause of cancer. “Mobiles ‘May Cause Brain Cancer’,” was the BBC headline on May 31.
The BBC was not the only one. Here’s Reuters on June 1, “WHO Says Cell Phone Use ‘Possibly Carcinogenic’,” and then on
July 4, “Evidence ‘Increasingly Against’ Phone Cancer Risk.” And CBS News on May 31: “Mobile Phones May Cause Cancer, Experts Say.” Its July 5 story on the ICNIRP paper expressed what everybody must have been thinking by then: “Cell Phone Cause Cancer. No They Don’t. Yes They Do.”
How is anyone possibly going to make sense of all this?
There was no overlap between the ICNIRP and IARC panels. For more than a decade, many of them had worked together Â—or at least were supposed to have worked togetherÂ— on IARC’s Interphone project, the largest epidemiological study of cell-phone users ever. Sometime midway through the study as the results pointed to a brain tumor risk, tensions flared and Interphone ground to a halt. Two opposing blocs emerged. On one side were those who accepted the results and began to speak out for precaution, and on the other were those who saw the results as too tainted with bias to have much meaning. As the deadlock
continued, Christopher Wild, the director of IARC, stepped in and insisted that the Interphone brain tumor results be published. But there was so little common ground between the two factions that when the paper finally appeared, it offered little in the way of in-depth analysis and it, too, left confusion in its wake.
Much of what has been published on cell phones and tumors over the last year has filled in those opposing views on Interphone. The near unanimous decision by the IARC panel to classify cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen on May 31
was based on the Interphone studies together with the work of the group led by Sweden’s Lennart Hardell. Given IARC’s prestigious reputation in evaluating what is and is not a cancer agent, one might have thought that its decision would point to the ascendency of Interphone’s precautionary bloc led by Australia’s Bruce Armstrong and Spain’s Elisabeth Cardis, both of whom were members the IARC working group.
But precautionary policies have always been anathema to ICNIRP. Perhaps its members were unsure as to how the IARC meeting would turn out and did not want to take any chances that their opinions would be ignored. The timing had to be more than fortuitous. ICNIRP’s commentary reads like a dissenting opinion on the IARC decision. Two of its authors, Sweden’s Maria
Feychting and U.K.’s Tony Swerdlow, were members of Interphone and its leading skeptics.
The ICNIRP paper also serves as a counterweight to an editorial published earlier this year in Occupational and Environmental Medicine by Cardis and Israel’s Siegal Sadetzki. Siegal is also a member of Interphone. In contrast to ICNIRP’s advice that there’s nothing to worry about, Cardis and Sadetzki cautioned people to play it safe by using hands-free sets and speakerphones.
Perhaps the starkest example of the two dueling camps is the recent publication of two separate analyses from different members of the Interphone project. These investigated the location of tumors relative to the RF radiation plumes from cell phones. The two papers appeared within a couple of weeks of each other. On May 24, the American Journal of Epidemiology
posted a paper by a large group that included Feychting and Swerdlow that concluded that tumors were not located in the parts of the brain with the highest RF exposures. It was followed on June 9 by a separate analysis from an Interphone group led by Cardis. This latter paper found that location was an important factor not to be discounted.
ICNIRP cites the location paper that Feychting and Swerdlow coauthored but fail to mention the Cardis analysis that would undermine their argument that everything is okay.
The dueling tumor location papers prompted the U.K.’s Daily Mail to run two opposing headlines two days apart: “Number of
People with Brain Cancer Could Soar 20-Fold in 20 Years Because of Mobile Phones, Experts Warn” and “Mobile Phones May NOT Increase Cancer Risk as Most Brain Tumours ‘Not Within Radiation Range’” (see our June 16 Short Take).
Does ICNIRP Speak for Public Health?
Once again what’s at stake has gotten lost. The controversy over whether cell phones lead to tumors is not some intellectual exercise like counting angels on the head of a pin. It’s about public health, and you can’t get more “public” than when you’re
talking about the health of 4-5 billion users of cell phones. The facts are that three different types of tumors have been linked to long-term users of mobile phones and that two independent groups have documented associations with glioma (a type of brain tumor) and with acoustic neuroma.
Yes, the studies are flawed. Epidemiology is always flawed, but they’re all we’ve got. Are ICNIRP’s epidemiologists really so sure that they are right than they are willing to throw out all the studies including their own? Are they really so sure that they see no reason to tell people to take simple precautions until we know more?
ICNIRP is a self-perpetuating group that declines to disclose its finances. Its Standing Committee on Epidemiology, which wrote the new commentary, has only welcomed the like-minded. Its previous chairman, Anders Ahlbom, has also registered his opinion that cell phone tumor risks are nonexistent. (He was the lead author of the last ICNIRP review of cell phones and cancer.) Another former member, Maria Blettner, was the lone dissenting voice in the final vote of the IARC working group. Both Blettner and Ahlbom worked on Interphone.
The feud over Interphone and the Hardell studies cheapens the cancer debate. That’s one message that is getting through. The correspondent for the Economist, no doubt said what many now believe when he recently wrote that “the whole brouhaha over mobile phones causing brain cancer is monumentally irrelevant compared with all the other things there are to worry about.” Score one for ICNIRP.
What’s the game plan for finding out whether cell phones cause cancer? ICNIRP says that we should simply wait and see
if tumor rates go up. If we see a measurable uptick in the next decade or two, we’ll know that ICNIRP gave us some bad advice. Or as Feychting, Swerdlow and the other ICNIRP epidemiologists put it, “There will be a case to answer.”
Washington, DC Â– July 7, 2011 — A new study that attempts to debunk the link between cancer and cell phones is riddled with conflicts of interest, says Environmental Health Trust (EHT). In May 2011, in a nearly unanimous decision, 31 expert advisers to the World Health Organization (WHO) stunned the worldÂ’s five billion cell phone users and declared radiofrequency and electromagnetic radiation a “possible” cause of brain cancer. Microwave radiation from cell phones joins a list of well-reviewed cancer-causing agents that includes engine exhaust, some pesticides, lead, coffee and unusually preserved vegetables.
However, a purportedly independent report rushed into print in the Environmental Health Perspectives Journal advises that cell phones do not increase the risk of cancer. The study, conducted for the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP) Standing Committee on Epidemiology, looked at the same studies and reached an entirely different opinion from the WHO. However, the INCNIRP scientists acknowledged that they could not conclusively rule out such risks.
The positions taken in this ICNRP review cannot easily be separated from the heavy industry funding for the work, which included direct financial support from the Mobile ManufacturersÂ’ Forum, The GSM Association, the Mobile Telecommunications Health and Research Programme, AFA Insurance, VINNOA (the Swedish government agency for innovation, which received funds from TeliaSonera, EricssonAB, and Telenor. Â“This is propaganda meant to raise public confusion about the issue and take on the recent WHO declaration on cell phones,” says Dr. Devra Davis, founder of EHT.
In her recent Huffington Post article, titled “Beyond Brain Cancer: Other Possible Dangers of Cell Phones,” Dr. Davis, explains that potential ills of cell phone use extend to damage of sperm, brain, liver, eyes and skin of exposed rabbit and rat offspring, as well as reduced sperm count and DNA damage in humans. “We cannot afford to ignore a growing body of experimental evidence that finds that cell phone radiation causes brain damage, affects hearing, sperm and liver damages brain, eye, sperm and liver,” says Dr. Davis.
“We need . . .to protect [children] and ourselves from the potential impact of microwave radiation from cell phones,” Dr. Davis writes. “We need to protect…developing brains and bodies from exposure to a sea of radiofrequency radiation whose full impact cannot be gauged at this time.”
In fact, according to Dr. Davis, brain cancer is not the only health issue of concern linked to cell phone radiation, nor is cell phones the only source of radiofrequency and electromagnetic radiation. Important new research in rabbits and rats find that pulsed digital signals from todayÂ’s smartphones damage sperm, brain, liver, eyes and skin of exposed offspring, and impair their memory and behavior. According to independent studies at the Cleveland Clinic and AustraliaÂ’s national research center, men who use cell phones four hours a day have about half the normal sperm and three times more damage to their DNA than those with much less use.
News studies showing that cellphone radiation increased cell death in liver and damaged brain, liver, eye and skin in rabbits were presented in Istanbul in May 2011 and co-hosted by Environmental Health Trust and Biophysics Department of Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey (Guler et al., 2011). Other work by the Gazi group, led by Professor Nesran Seyhan, has provided recent confirmation of the capacity of cellphone radiation to weaken the blood brain barrierÂ—a finding first produced by Alan Frey in 1975
About Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Current multi-media projects include: local and national campaigns to ban smoking and asbestos; working with international physician and worker safety groups to warn about the risks of inappropriate use of diagnostic radiation and cell phones, promoting research and awareness of environmental causes of breast cancer, and building environmental wellness programs in Wyoming and Pennsylvania to address the environmental impacts of energy development, the built environment and radon. EHT was created with the goal of promoting health and preventing disease one person, one community and one nation at a time. Capitalizing on growing public interest in Dr. Devra Lee DavisÂ’s three popular books, When Smoke Ran Like Water, a National Book Award Finalist, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, and ! ! Disconnect–The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What Industry Has Done to Hide It and How to Protect Your Family, as well as recent documentary films, the foundationÂ’s website offers clear, science-based information to prevent environmentally based disease and promote health, for the general public, children, and health professionals. For more information about getting involved in the numerous special projects spearheaded by the EHT, please log on to www.SaferPhoneZone.com.
Distinguished Cancer Researchers Ronald B. Herberman and Devra Lee Davis Call On Cell Phone Companies to Release Records for Research on Cell Phones and Health
The following was published by the Environmental Health Trust www.saferphonezone.com
Following the World Health Organization?s recent declaration that cell phone radiation is a possible cause of cancer in humans, a growing number of scientists are calling on the cell phone industry to cooperate in studying the issue. In 2008, when testifying before Congress, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, Chairman of the Board of EHT and renowned cancer biologist, asked industry to turn over records of calls with confidentiality protected so that researchers would not have to rely on the memory of those with brain cancer to determine their patterns of cell phone use.
?In light of the WHO determination that cellphone radiation and electromagnetic fields are possible causes of cancer in humans, it is unconscionable that researchers do not have access to this information at this time,? Dr. Herberman said. ?We as a nation cannot afford to go down the road of willful ignorance again, with cell phone radiation standing in for tobacco,? said Dr. Devra Davis, cancer epidemiologist and President of EHT, ?We should take simple precautions to prevent harm from radiation, and also promote extensive research on these ubiquitous devices.?
The following list of facts vs. myths about cell phone radiation has been compiled by Environmental Health Trust. The recent WHO statement has provoked a litany of responses from critics within the cell phone industry. Here are some of the most common myths that have been aired since the statement was released, along with the countering FACT, which is rooted in the latest and most accurate scientific research findings.
?The WHO statement does not mean cell phones cause cancer, because it is based on limited evidence.?
The WHO determination that ?radiofrequency radiation and electromagnetic fields? are a possible ?carcinogen? rests on an exhaustive examination of peer-reviewed, published epidemiology studies, industry-funded Interphone studies, and hundreds of scientific papers on radiofrequency radiation.
The data and weight of the evidence found that with more than 10 years of use (with 30 minutes a day considered as high use), there is a significantly increased risk of glioma, a lethal brain tumor.
Thirty-one highly acclaimed members of the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO committee, voted in a nearly unanimous decision after detailed examination of this data. In their expert opinion, the evidence warranted a 2b classification, the same category a possible carcinogenic.
IF THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY HAS STUDIES PROVING OTHERWISE, NOW IS THE TIME TO SHARE THEM WITH THE PUBLIC.
?There is no known biological mechanism for cell phone radiation to cause cancer.? (Implication: The data must be wrong.)
This statement is intended to mislead the public. It implies that science understands the underlying mechanisms through which cancer arises in all instances. In the history of science, it often takes decades before a mechanism is understood. We do not fully understand the biological mechanism through which tobacco causes lung cancer. The data reviewed by the WHO was substantial enough to bring them to an almost unanimous decision regarding this classification of cell phone radiation as a possible cause of cancer.
?If cell phones were really causing brain tumors, with so many people using them, we should be seeing an increase in brain tumor incidence, and we are not.?
Many doctors report that they are seeing an increase in brain tumors in younger persons in their own practices. Because more than 70% of all brain cancer occurs in persons over age 60, the overall age-adjusted rate of brain cancer reflects chiefly what has happened in older persons. From other research we know that the average latency period between exposure and development of a glioma is 20 to 30 years (similar to all solid tumors such as lung cancer). A trivial segment of the population was using cell phones three decades ago, when cell phones were introduced to the US marketplace in 1983. Most Americans did not begin using them routinely until the late 1990s. Thus we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg now, with gliomas in early adopters. But many others will be coming up on 20 years of use soon, and there may be a surge in gliomas around 2018. Those who begin using cell phones as teenagers have a four to five-fold increased risk of brain tumors in less than a decade, according to studies carried out by physician-researcher Lennart Hardell.
In 2010 there was a significant increase in cancer of the brain and nervous system of Latinos. Also, there has been a rise in brain cancer in 20-29 year olds; the same subgroup that does not use a landline and has been using cell phones as teenagers.
?The FDA, ACS and FCC say cell phones are safe.?
Websites from these groups all include information on keeping phones at a safe distance from the body, as do fine print warnings that manufacturers provide. Until the WHO classification, the industry included both the WHO and the American Cancer Society (ACS) in this statement. Formerly, the ACS claimed there was no evidence linking brain tumors to cell phones. Since the WHO classification, the American Cancer Society states, ?the bottom line is the evidence is enough to warrant concern.?
What this statement is omitting is the fact that the FCC and FDA say cell phones are safe ONLY IF HELD A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE BODY. THE FCC REQUIRES THIS SAFETY DISTANCE DATA TO BE IN EVERY MANUAL. Currently this data is being hidden in fine-print warnings in user manuals that few read.
?The 2b classification labeling cell phones as a possible carcinogen is the same classification as pickled vegetables, talcum powder and coffee.?
This is an attempt to dismiss the seriousness of this determination and mislead the public. The statement is correct and is not to be taken lightly. Diets high in highly salted vegetables in China are tied with unusual increases in esophageal cancer. Like many chemotherapy agents, coffee can cause urinary tract cancer, while also lowering the risk of colon cancer. The talc in talcum powder for years was heavily contaminated with asbestos which increases the risk of ovarian cancer.
?The Interphone study showed no link between cell phones and brain tumors.?
That is a false statement. One Interphone study showed a 40% increased risk of glioma with more than 10 years of use. The overall absence of risk is due to the fact that the average user in this study used a phone for less than eight years, and that a user was defined as someone who made one call a week for six months. Because overall exposures were so low and limited, it is not surprising that there is no overall increase in risk. But in the heaviest users, a doubled or greater risk is evident.
?This will never be as serious as tobacco.?
This is potentially far worse than tobacco. We never had 100% of people smoking, but we do have nearly all people using cell phones today. Six billion people, including children, use cell phones regularly?some exclusively as landlines are abandoned?with considerable exposure. We do not have the same scientific foundation for understanding cell phone radiation as we had for tobacco and lung cancer for two reasons: The telecom industry has intentionally blocked studies, and it is more difficult to get funding now because of the economic downturn.
About Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Current multi-media projects include: local and national campaigns to ban smoking and asbestos; working with international physician and worker safety groups to warn about the risks of inappropriate use of diagnostic radiation and cell phones, promoting research and awareness of environmental causes of breast cancer, and building environmental wellness programs in Wyoming and Pennsylvania to address the environmental impacts of energy development, the built environment and radon. EHT was created with the goal of promoting health and preventing disease one person, one community and one nation at a time. Chaired by Ronald B. Herberman, MD, a distinguished cancer biologist, the foundation?s website offers clear, science-based information to prevent environmentally based disease and promote health, for the general public, children, and health professionals. For more information about getting involved in the numerous special projects spearheaded by the EHT, please log on to www.ehtrust.org.
The recentÂ World Health Organization reportÂ stating that cell phone radiation is “possibly carcinogenic” has caused a bit of a stir.
Whatever the case, the whole mobile phones-cause-cancer idea isn’t a new one by any stretch of the imagination and it’s not a bad time to revisit ways to use your phone without actually touching it to your head.Â
The mobile phone industry will have you believe that mobile phone use is as safe as drinking a cup of coffee, but the more informed are well aware this is just ?SPIN?. I am yet to meet anybody who can prove that mobile phone radiation is good for you!
It is best to have a more cautious approach until the dangers are proven one way or another. There is no doubt mobile phones are here to stay as a more and more important part of all our lives. However, a small modification of their use can ensure you are minimising the risks.
The Safe Mobile Phone code (as published by www.mobilewise.org)
Â Make only essential calls and keep them short. Use a corded landline for chatting.
How do you cut down the risk?
The worst??Â Â Â Â Phone held to the head
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Bluetooth headset
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Standard wired headset
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Speakerphone (at least 10cm away from head)
The Best??Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Air Tube headset
Bluetooth headsets may expose the user to more radiation relative to a wired headset if it is not turned off between calls.
If a wired headset is held with the wire touchingÂ the back or side of the phone, the radiation will pass along the wire and into the ear. This will increase the radiation level into the ear substantially. Also, hold the phone away from the body to minimise exposure to the important organs.
Microwave emissions reduce drastically with distance so it is obvious not to hold a switched on mobile close to the head. There are limits to the amount of microwave radiation that can be emitted by mobile phones. This Specific Absorption Rate – SAR – should not be more than 2 watts per kilogram.
Microwaves from the phone can penetrate body tissues to a depth of a few centimetres.
The Wireless Federation reported today that the South African government is planning new legislation to ban pregnant women and children under 16 using mobile phones. The Wireless Federation is a wireless industry research conglomerate. The Wireless Federation Headquarters are in London.
It is reported that a draft policy document produced by the department of health shows government is concerned about the potential health risks associated with using mobile phones. The document, which is likely to spark a public outcry, proposes an outright ban on pregnant women and children using mobile phones, at least until the scientific community can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no deleterious side effects to people?s health.
The department cites international research that purports to show there is a link between mobile phone radiation and a range of health problems, including leukemia and lymphoma, especially in children. It cites research that states that radiation from mobile phones can also cause Alzheimer?s disease and has been linked to autism.
According to Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi, he has consulted closely with communications minister Roy Padayachie and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa about the department?s plan. The department of health intends calling a public hearing at which it wants to hear presentations from public health experts and telecoms engineers about the best way of implementing the legislation.
With the 1p reduction in fuel prices announced last week by the chancellor George Osborne it comes as no surprise that the Oil industry raises it?s price by 1p forcing Shell, Esso, Texaco and BP to do the same. This does at least give the supermarkets a chance to make the difference and it was interesting to see that Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury?s and Morrison all had different regional pricing. 1p is going to make very little difference to the haulage industry and food distribution so higher food prices seem certain for the rest of this year, especially if the earthquake and tsunami in Japan have a knock on effect with their exports. We import some of Japan?s fish products especially shell fish which could all suffer the consequences from the impact of radiation as well as any food imports. Â
Â This pricing is also having a severe knock on effect within the global airline business with BA, Virgin, Easy jet and Ryan air all pricing their fuel surcharges almost on a weekly basis. Prices at the pump have risen by 17p per litre since the Egyptian unrest in the Middle East and with the political uncertainty in Bahrain, Tunisia and Libya oil prices can only go one way for the rest of the year unless of course the treasury decides to reduce our tax burden?..unlikely!
Â Like most businesses in the UK we have absorbed the VAT increase and the ?air hands free low radiation headset? price remains unchanged?..
Â In the news with air?..
Â Devra Davies had a very interesting broadcast on Fox news in the week if you?d like to see more here?s the link video.foxnews.com/v/4593922/cell-phone-radiation-danger/
Â Lady Gaga still refuses to place a mobile phone next to her head for personal safety?? an air headset would solve this problem making life much more convenient!
Our Facebook page will be up and running next week.