This section provides answers to common questions about the mobile phones and other wireless devices. Mobile communications devices include handsets, wireless data cards for laptop computers and other specialised low powered radio transmitters. Wireless devices are designed to comply with international safety guidelines, which the WHO states provide protection against all known health hazards.
Click on the question to expand
Media reports in April 2007 claimed that a small German study reporting effects on bee behaviour when a digital cordless phone was placed near hives, was an indication that mobile communications might be a possible cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD is being studied by a working group of the Mid Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium (MAAREC). A FAQ produced by the working group and dated 9 March 2007 lists base stations as one cause that is not currently being investigated.
The United States Department of Agriculture says that there is no link between mobile phones and CCD. They also quote Stefan Kimmel, the researcher who conducted the German study as saying that there is 'no link between our tiny little study and the CCD-phenomenon ... anything else said or written is a lie.' Many of the media reports included a statement attributed to Albert Einstein but it is uncertain whether he made the statement. In addition, a 1981 study of bees exposed to 2450MHz signals at much higher powers found no effect on bee behaviour.
In April 2007 a spokesperson for the British Trust for Ornithology was quoted as saying: "I can't think of any reason mobile phone masts would affect them [birds]." In 1999, the WHO International EMF Project, the ICNIRP and the German Federal Office for radiation Protection (BfS) hosted a seminar on the effects of electromagnetic fields in the environment. A review produced after the seminar concluded that: 'Overall, it appears that the human EMF exposure limits recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP, 1998) would also be protective of the environment.'
Some people have been concerned about reports of possible increased rates of disease near to radio transmitters. These reports are sometimes described as clusters. Diseases such as cancer are distributed randomly in the community and this means that there will be chance instances of apparent increases in diseases occurring close to radio transmitters. Independent health authorities in Australia, France, Northern Ireland, Spain and the USA have investigated suspected clusters near base station and other radio transmitters by found no evidence to link illness with either proximity to or exposure from radio transmitters.
The ICNIRP has published a review of existing research and the WHO concluded that 'Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.'
Laboratory studies (e.g., Regel et al., 2006; Eltiti et al., 2007) involving exposure to base station signals under controlled conditions have found no consistent effects on well-being, cognitive performance or symptoms. There are many technical challenges to conducting studies of people living near base stations, for example, in 2004 the ICNIRP stated that: '… the relation between distance and exposure is very weak' so actual measurements of RF levels are needed not distances from antennas. In September 2007, a UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) report concluded that it was not yet possible to conduct a study that could provide a meaningful outcome.
There are some studies in the WHO's EMF research database that report effects, however, this database contains both published and non-peer reviewed studies. It is not the quantity of experiments but the quality of the study that is important. Independent health experts have criticised many of the other base station studies for technical flaws such as poor exposure assessment, symptom-reporting bias or inadequate control of confounders such as age. In another example, an Austrian study from 2008, has since been withdrawn as it was reported that no base station was active during the period of the claimed cancer increase.
The UK Health Protection Agency advises that on the basis of current scientific information WiFi equipment satisfies international guidelines and, therefore, there is no reason why schools and others should not use WLAN equipment.
In addition, the WHO concluded in May 2006 that '...there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.' If you want to know more, the WiFiAlliance and the Health Physics Society have produced specific information on this topic. In May 2007, the Panorama program made a number of allegations about the safety of WiFi . However, in November 2007 the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit ruled that the program '...gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue.'
The consensus of many expert reviews is that there are no health risks from exposures to radio signals up to the WHO recommended international guidelines. In November 2007, a paper published in the journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine claimed a link between autism and electromagnetic fields. The GSMA is concerned that this paper could cause unnecessary alarm to the parents of autistic children. The study is poorly described, has no control group and makes claims on causes of autism and actions of radio signals that have been rejected by health groups around the world.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) recommend adoption of standards based on the guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These standards protect all persons against all established health hazards. In public areas, typical exposures are a small fraction of the ICNIRP guidelines. For specific information please consult national regulatory authorities.
0 Comments