All of the suggested potential problems relating to mobile phones and their risks stem from radio waves and their resulting effects, but what is a radio wave? Mobile phones and the antennas mounted on base stations are two-way radios that produce radio-frequency emissions, similar to those emitted by TV and radios used by taxis, emergency services and broadcasters.
Radio Frequency is part of the electromagnetic spectrum- as are television emissions, light, X-rays and Gamma Rays, but they operate at much lower frequencies. At the higher frequencies X-rays and Gamma Rays can break chemical bonds, damaging the material of cells in the body (ionisation). Radio Frequency signals are non-ionising, causing no known damage to the body's cell structures.
The Radio Frequency beams emitted from mobile phone antennas are wide horizontally but narrow vertically. Radio Frequency intensity at ground level directly below the antenna is low, it then increases slightly just beyond the antenna and then decreases again further away from the antenna. The areas with the highest Radio Frequency signals are normally fenced off as a precautionary measure but the emissions are still below international health and safety exposure guidelines.
In many urban areas television and radio antennas operate at higher power levels when emitting Radio Frequency than mobile phone antennas, so why the all the issues over mobile phones in particular?
Scientific research has shown that Radio Frequency radiation can heat the body. To date, the balance of evidence from research indicates mobile phone technology does not pose a health risk, but the perception by some people is unlikely to change until further research is conducted. Additionally, the cumulative nature of the potential risks, means that the evidence must take in a far greater time span than is currently available.
International guidelines are in place to limit public exposure to radio waves from base stations and mobile phones. These guidelines ensure that Radio Frequency emissions stay below a certain level, preventing excessive heating. Set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), they have been adopted by the UK Government and the country's five mobile phone operators. ICNIRP is an international independent scientific organisation that provides guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-ionising radiation. Short exposure to mobile phone radiation - two hours - has been reported in 2003 to destroy cells in parts of the brain important for memory, movement and learning, and could possibly cause premature onset of illnesses such as Alzheimer’s.
Lund University Hospital Professor Leif Salford says mobile radiation allows harmful proteins and toxins through the brain barrier in rats. He also has found significant degree of damage to brain neurons in adolescent rats. He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high-level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats not exposed to radiation.
Such evidence can be interpreted to help reach conclusions on such an issue, however limitations and biased inputs could result in an uncertain outcome. The rats used in the experiment were subjected to levels of radiation similar to an intensive mobile phone use for 120 minutes. It must be realised the regularity that such an occasion occurs in similarly developed humans, particularly for such a length of time, rarely. If the user of a mobile phone used the phone in such a manner that resulted in extreme radiation, they would be unlikely to do so regularly. Therefore, the suggestions the evidence makes may not be applicable to every situation. Granted, there will be people who do such things, and therefore, the evidence will have significance within my conclusion.
The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy, which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other research replicate the work of Salford .
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. This work, carried out on humans would appear to support Salford’s research on rats.
From a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. However, for people with existing medical conditions the risks may be significantly greater. As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation, which induced a constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.
This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe , but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. This evidence is very circumstantial and unreliable. Only ten people conducted the experiment, and with such a small sample, such evidence cannot be seen as conclusive.
This work on human subjects follows other earlier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects, but with the evidence from research being so uncertain, the opposing view of the argument must be considered. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated.
Additionally, a great deal depends on the type of mobile phone you use. The position the aerial is located and style that it takes may result in different consequences for the user. This may also be reason for variable evidence and an uncertain conclusion. With so many different variables possible within the same field, all evidence has to be interpreted from an unbiased point of view, and corroborated to ensure a biased conclusion. The economics of the situation may well result in ‘massaged’ research.
From the evidence which I have studied, analysed and interpreted, I can see there is too much overwhelming evidence proving the point that the risk to the majority of mobile phone users and the non- using public alike, is such that it would be unreasonable to assume that mobile phones pose a serious health risk. However, I feel that evidence suggesting mobile phones are one of the causes of increased blood pressure- and therefore heart attacks and strokes shocking. It has not been commonly assumed that these two could be placed together, and therefore it should be considered that those at risk of suffering heart attacks or strokes might undergo them as a result of radiation exposure. Contradictory to this, it should be realised that the radiation emitted from a mobile phone in the UK will always be below the guidelines set down, condoned by the Government, to ensure safe usage of mobile phones. Additionally, such interpretations of the radiation do not appear to take into account that television and other transmitters also release similar radiation, and therefore it may not only be mobile phones that are to blame for the results, if there are indeed any.
From this, I can only conclude that mobile phones are safe to use, as long as safe precautions are taken. Long phone calls do not seem sensible, when text messaging is available. Nor does owning a mobile phone when you are young. I got my first phone at the age of eleven. If I could go back in time after writing this report, I imagine I would wait a while longer before buying myself one. However, the effects of high blood pressure, found as a result of mobile phone use, would not affect a child, so perhaps it would be safe to use a mobile at this age. But then, in thirty years time, I may rue the day I wrote that!
As a result of my conclusion, further questions arose. I realised from thinking literally and realistically, that people who have a contract for their mobile phone may feel the pressure of the economics of the situation. In real terms, this may mean that people who pay for a certain number of minutes of calls per month, and want to get value for money, will use their phone to the limit of the minutes available to them. This may mean that they subject themselves to the extreme radiation that Professor Leif Salford talked of regarding the effects it has on rats. However research on humans is extremely limited at this stage. Furthermore, I realise that within the next generation, when far more detailed research has been conducted with the benefit of hindsight, awful results may be found. It may be that all of my generation have been subjected to radiation with results no one anticipated. However, it is only possible to draw conclusions from the evidence available at present.
In all, the conclusions that are available to this wide forum are as indecisive as they are conclusive. My research has led me to ask as many questions as I have been able to answer.