However, is so common that will often react nearly spontaneously unless protected by materials that block the visible spectrum. Examples include photographic film and some molecules involved in .
Ionizing radiation has many practical uses, but it is also dangerous to human health.
Non-Ionizing radiation
Non-ionizing radiation refers to any type of that does not carry enough to atoms or molecules - that is, to completely remove an from an or .
The composition of this radiation can vary depending on what may be ionized. , , , and waves are all examples of non-ionizing radiation, though visible and near ultraviolet can also ionize some molecules. The light from the that reaches the earth is largely composed of non-ionizing radiation, with the notable exception of some rays. However, most ionizing radiation is filtered out by the atmosphere.
‘Because it is lower energy radiation, the use of this type of radiation in medical fields and everyday life poses fewer health risks than in forms such as ’. [7]
Do microwaves cause harm?
‘Most scientific evidence has found that adverse reactions have found no short term effects but the long term effects are yet unknown for using mobile phones’. [8] Theses effects may not be clear until our generation reaches middle age.
Here are some of the effects which have been claimed as a result of excess mobile phone usage:
Tumours / Cancer
Mainly in the head, tumours most likely are to occur on the brain due to excess mobile phone usage. Cancer can also be caused by cell structure alteration (mutation)
Other problems associated with microwave radiation include; fatigues, headaches, learning problems, sleep disorders (insomnia) and memory loss. [9] These may well be linked to ‘over use’ of mobiles but not linked to usage of mobiles
This is a picture of a tumour scan; microwave radiation from mobile phones is more likely to cause brain tumours than anything else. The arrow pointing at the black mark on the scan shows the tumour. This tumour will grow even bigger until it either explodes or crushes the cerebral cortex, with either way still sadly resulting in death
Cell Structure and Activity
Radiation causes albumen to leak out of blood cells; this is what can cause brain damage and decay.
Are Children more at risk?
Many articles that I have read agree that children are more at risk. This is partly because their skulls are thinner than those of fully grown adults; this in turn means that children can absorb more radiation than adults, up to 60% more radiation energy than adults. Also children’s brains are developing more rapidly and with the increase of the mobile phone culture, they are more susceptible to damage. Children still have a lifetime to go on using mobile phones; this means they are going to carry on absorbing radiation.
ALARA
ALARA is an acronym for an important principle in and stands for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable". The aim is to minimize the risk of . This compromise is well illustrated in . The application of can aid the patient by providing doctors with a medical diagnosis, but the exposure should be reasonably low enough to keep the statistical probability of or (stochastic effects) below an acceptable level, and to eliminate deterministic effects (eg. skin reddening or cataracts). An acceptable level of incidence of stochastic effects is considered to be equal for a worker to the risk in another work generally considered to be safe.
This policy is based on the principle that any amount of radiation exposure, no matter how small, can increase the chance of negative biological effects such as cancer. It is also based on the principle that the probability of the occurrence of negative effects of radiation exposure increases with cumulative lifetime dose. At the same time, radiology and other practices that involve use of radiations bring benefits to population, so reducing radiation exposure can reduce the efficacy of a medical practice. The economic cost, for example of adding a barrier against radiation, must also be considered when applying the ALARA principle.
Conclusion
Mobile phones are very convenient. In emergencies they can save lives, but because there is some evidence that they are dangerous you have to look at both views, we should not ban their use. We should approach the matter with the ALARA principle (as low as reasonably achievable) – we should look at both views to see if the benefits balance out the risks. It is a matter of public interest. I believe that it is reasonably safe to carry on using your mobile phones but to keep the usage to a minimum and only use it when necessary. Manufactures now publish the SAR (specific absorption rate) of the radiation on boxes, so now when buying a phone you should by the phone with the lowest amount of radiation emitted. Improvements like this can help to balance out the risks and the advantages.
Mobile phones in general are quite safe to use but not continuously, precautions need to be used to ensure that they are okay to use. In ways mobile phones are dangerous such as they can cause cancer - but this has not been yet completely proven, but they are very useful because in an emergency they can be very helpful to you.
Evaluation
This coursework project uses a wide range of sources but it is still possible that some of the sources maybe incorrect in their data. For example I have used Wikipedia for sources [4] and [6], Wikipedia is a website that can be edited by the public so the data could be wrong, most of my sources are from valid scientific websites that can not be edited, although two sources are from a newspaper, this is sources [10] and [11] but it is not from a tabloid so therefore is most likely not exaggerated. Official scientific sources are more reliable such as articles from magazines and website such as New Scientist.
Bibliography
[1] -
- (16-03-07)
Source of a mobile phone is from a commercial site so it cannot be as reliable as a source from a scientific journal
[2] –
- (16-03-07)
Simple diagram so it is reliable but Source of a mobile phone is from a commercial site so it cannot be as reliable as a source from a scientific journal
[3] –
New scientist magazine – July 2006 issue - (16-03-07)
Scientific journal so it is more reliable than any other sources used.
[4] –
- (16-03-07)
Website that can be changed by the public so it is less reliable so it can be changed
[5] –
- (16-03-07)
Source of a mobile phone is from a commercial site so it cannot be as reliable as a source from a scientific journal
[6] –
- (16-03-07)
Website that can be changed by the public so it is less reliable so it can be changed
[7] –
- (16-03-07)
Newspaper but could be exaggerated only if it from a tabloid, this is not from a tabloid and has been published by an official scientist.
[8] -
- (16-03-07)
Unknown research website, is very reliable in its knowledge because it was published by a scientist, work submitted was evaluated and viewed by colleagues in the scientific community.
[9] –
- (16-03-07)
Official NHS website so article published was submitted by doctors who work for the National Health Service, but could be false to meet government standards.
[10] –
Newspaper article from – The Daily News (American Newspaper) – Date - April 25th 2006 - (16-03-07)
Newspaper but could be exaggerated only if it from a tabloid, this is not from a tabloid and has been published by an official scientist.
[11] –
Newspaper article from – The Sunday Mirror (British Newspaper) - Date – December 27th 2006 - (16-03-07)
Newspaper but could be exaggerated only if it from a tabloid, this is not from a tabloid and has been published by an official scientist.
