Bad for your health.How harmful are cell phones and what preventive measures can you take? Conspiracies involving major government cover-ups and big business hush-ups, with the poor, innocent bystander by·stand·er n. A person who is present at an event without participating in it. bystander Noun a person present but not involved; onlooker; spectator Noun 1. caught in the middle, are usually the stuff of blockbuster movies. But there is a possible danger out there. It's playing in real life and more than likely it impacts you and the lives of more than 200 million people. With the tremendous growth of cell phone use, numerous reports have been issued regarding the potential health hazards that can come from the devices. These range from headaches, noise in the ears and stress to more terrifying ter·ri·fy tr.v. ter·ri·fied, ter·ri·fy·ing, ter·ri·fies 1. To fill with terror; make deeply afraid. See Synonyms at frighten. 2. To menace or threaten; intimidate. reports of memory loss, DNA DNA: see nucleic acid. DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid One of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. damage and malignant brain tumors. These growing fears are centered on the low-powered radio signals or electromagnetic frequency (EMF emf: see electromotive force. (1) (ElectroMagnetic Field) See electromagnetic radiation. (2) (Enhanced MetaFile) See Windows metafile. ) waves that are emitted by wireless phones. Emitted over the entire surface of the phone, these waves penetrate users' brains. Although scientific research and studies about the danger of EMF waves date back over the past 50 years, as yet not one study has demonstrated conclusively that EMF waves are actually harmful. Major media hype came as a result of last fall's appearance by Dr. George Carlo George Louis Carlo (b. August 24, 1953) is an American epidemiologist, author, and attorney. He is best known as one of the most prominent scientists investigating the possible negative health effects of cellular phones. , chairman of Wireless Technology Research in Washington, D.C., on ABC-TV's 20/20. WTR WTR Water WTR Writer WTR Wait To Restore WTR Wireless Technology Research WTR Walker, Texas Ranger (TV show) WTR Western Test Range WTR With-The-Rule Astigmatism WTR Working Time Regulation (UK) was established in 1993 to address the public health risks from wireless communications wireless communications System using radio-frequency, infrared, microwave, or other types of electromagnetic or acoustic waves in place of wires, cables, or fibre optics to transmit signals or data. technologies. Its $28.2 million budget was funded by the Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association (CTIA (1) See CompTIA. (2) (Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, Washington, DC, www.ctia.org, www.wow-com.com) A membership organization founded in 1984 that is involved with regulatory and public affairs issues in the wireless industry. ). The WTR study showed a correlation between a higher incidence of brain cancer and a greater risk of rare neurological tumors and DNA damage among the users of handheld phones versus users of other types of phones. However, despite Dr. Carlos findings, CTIA, the $200-billion-a-year industry trade group, maintains that "wireless phones are safe and meet the standards adopted by the U.S. government," says association president Thomas Wheeler. Quoting the World Health Organization, Wheeler says, "There is no convincing evidence that [EMF] waves induce or promote cancer." Truth be told, every model sold in the U.S. has a specific absorption rate Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is a measure of the rate at which radio frequency (RF) energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to radio-frequency electromagnetic field. The most common use is in relation to cellular telephones. (SAR (Segmentation And Reassembly) The protocol that converts data to cells for transmission over an ATM network. It is the lower part of the ATM Adaption Layer (AAL), which is responsible for the entire operation. See AAL. SAR - segmentation and reassembly ) rating, which measures how much microwave energy from the phone can penetrate the brain. However, according to the 20/20 report, government safety standards are vague because certain phones pass the Federal Communications Commission's safety requirements when tested in one position and fail when held in another. What harm was done all depended on how close the cell phone antenna was to the head. Held too close, as much as 60% of the microwave radiation is absorbed by and actually penetrates the brain. The big three mobile phone manufacturers--Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia--argue that the tests were misleading and that their products meet the strictest standards set by the government. All three companies post information on their Websites regarding testing and safety issues. For more information, see www.erison.com/health www.motorola.com/rfhealth and www.nokia.com/safety. "Wireless users are exposed to limits on SAR levels that are anywhere from 10 to 50 times below the point where any risks exist," says Norman Sandier, director of global strategic issues at Motorola Inc. in Schaumburg, Illinois. "There is a huge margin built into the phones, so that even if you exceeded the recommended safety limits, it still would not translate into any known health risks." The fracas over cellphone (CELLular telePHONE) The first ubiquitous wireless telephone. Originally analog, all new cellular systems are digital, which has enabled the cellphone to turn into a smartphone that has access to the Internet. dangers has driven an emerging market of devices You can equip your phone with one of these shielding devices. Three popular ones are: * SafeTShield (formerly known as the NoDanger Protective Phone Shield), a quarter-sized mesh earpiece that claims to absorb more than 95% of the EMF waves emitted. It was developed and manufactured in Japan and distributed in the U.S. by SV1 Inc. in Pompano Beach, Florida Pompano Beach is a city in Broward County, Florida, along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean just to the north of Fort Lauderdale. The Nearby Hillsboro Inlet forms part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. As of 2006, the U.S. , for $24.95 (888-256-2006, Ext. 11). * Less EMF is a line of radiation-shielding products, including phone jackets and earpiece shields. The company claims its devices will ward off headaches, heat sensation near the ear, disorientation disorientation /dis·or·i·en·ta·tion/ (-or?e-en-ta´shun) the loss of proper bearings, or a state of mental confusion as to time, place, or identity. and irritability. The price ranges from $30 to $35 (www.lessemf. com; 888-537-7363). * Zeropa, "The Ladybird," is a ceramic device that is attached close to the base of the antenna and protects the user from potentially harmful electromagnetic radiation electromagnetic radiation, energy radiated in the form of a wave as a result of the motion of electric charges. A moving charge gives rise to a magnetic field, and if the motion is changing (accelerated), then the magnetic field varies and in turn produces an in cellular phones, pagers and cordless phones. The "Ladybird" sells for approximately $35 (www.zeropa.com; 212-808-3018). It comes as no surprise that CTIA, wireless phone manufacturers and other industry groups believe that shield-device manufacturers are preying on consumers' fear "Not only are shields or guards unnecessary from a health standpoint, they may be damaging from a technical standpoint because they interfere with the signal from the phone," says Sandier "Shields disturb transmission to the base antenna, which may cause a phone to actually boost its power in order to keep the phone call connected to the network." Everyone from wireless phone manufacturers to industry groups to the government concedes that more research in the area of cell phone danger needs to be done. "Consumers must understand that there are several questions that still remain unanswered concerning electromagnetic waves," says Dr. Stanley Kornhauser, president of the National Institute for Electromedical Information Inc. "But the big question.., is should we take comfort in reports that evidence regarding cell phone danger is not conclusive or should we take steps to mitigate or reduce exposure to EMF waves even if the scientific jury is still out?" |
|
||||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion