Wireless device radiation and health

677:(EIRP) output of 3 watts, and the network continuously adjusts the phone transmitter to the lowest power consistent with good signal quality, reducing it to as low as one milliwatt when near the cell tower. Tower channel transmitters usually have an EIRP power output of around 50 watts. Even when it is not being used, unless it is turned off, a mobile phone periodically emits radio signals on its control channel, to keep contact with its cell tower and for functions like handing off the phone to another tower if the user crosses into another cell. When the user is making a call, the phone transmits a signal on a second channel which carries the user's voice. Existing 1019: 1171:. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (e.g., children), the adoption of phones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and 33: 980: 4940: 571:); the parts of the head or body nearest to the antenna can absorb this energy and convert it to heat. Since at least the 1990s, scientists have researched whether the now-ubiquitous radiation associated with mobile phone antennas or cell phone towers is affecting human health. Mobile phone networks use various bands of RF radiation, some of which overlap with the microwave range. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation. 61: 1113:, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff's cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs, accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts, and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts. 4951: 603:. That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of wireless devices needs to be conducted. The WHO states that "A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use." 4928: 1317: 946:

case-control study involving four European countries has investigated mobile phone use among children or adolescents and risk of brain tumour; showing no association between the two (Aydin et al. 2011). ... Given this paucity of information regarding children using mobile phones and cancer ... more epidemiological studies are needed.

2873: (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) ("Because no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation has been proffered by the plaintiffs, as explained below, the defendants' motion will be granted and the plaintiffs' motion will be denied."), 1036:(ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonize the different standards in existence. 1304:

According to the FTC, "there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions. Products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits

745:

cordless phone's radiation could actually exceed the radiation of a mobile phone. The HPA explains that while the DECT cordless phone's radiation has an average output power of 10 mW, it is actually in the form of 100 bursts per second of 250 mW, a strength comparable to some mobile phones.

1039:

Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission

732:

band, 24 to 52 GHz. Millimetre waves are absorbed by atmospheric gases so 5G networks will use smaller cells than previous cellular networks, about the size of a city block. Instead of a cell tower, each cell will use an array of multiple small antennas mounted on existing buildings and utility

716:

of distance as they spread out from a transmitting antenna. So the phone transmitter, which is held close to the user's face when talking, is a much greater source of human exposure than the tower transmitter, which is typically at least hundreds of metres away from the user. A user can reduce their

898:

radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz affect male fertility, possibly affect female fertility, and may have adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies due to insufficient adequate studies. The

1179:

headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth. Overall, public information remains a challenge as various health consequences are evoked in the literature and by the media, putting populations

795:

The HPA's position is that "... radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones." It also saw "... no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment." In October 2007, the HPA launched a new "systematic" study into the effects of

1065:

In March 2020, for the first time since 1998, ICNIRP updated its guidelines for exposures to frequencies over 6 GHz, including the frequencies used for 5G that are over 6 GHz. The Commission added a restriction on acceptable levels of exposure to the whole body, added a restriction on

2003:

Repacholi, M. H.; Lerchl, A.; Röösli, M.; Sienkiewicz, Z.; Auvinen, A.; Breckenkamp, J.; d'Inzeo, G; Elliott, P; Frei, P.; Heinrich, S.; Lagroye, I.; Lahkola, A.; McCormick, D. L.; Thomas, S.; Vecchia, P. (2012). "Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors".

1162:

According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent

997:

Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that the main antenna axis should not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres. This recommendation was modified in 2003 to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or

586:

of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as

999: 945:

The 2010 WHO Research Agenda identified a lack of sufficient evidence relating to children and this is still the case. ... Given that no long-term prospective study has looked at this issue to date this research need remains a high priority. For cancer in particular only one completed

606:

International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as non-thermal effects have not been

1031:

To protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the

1043:

Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.

1305:

electromagnetic waves." Such shields "may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation." The FTC has enforced false advertising claims against companies that sell such products.

669:

which communicate with each other. Since in a cellular network the same radio channels are reused every few cells, cellular networks use low power transmitters to avoid radio waves from one cell spilling over and interfering with a nearby cell using the same frequencies.

1010:

found that "Although direct causation of negative human health effects from RFR from cellular phone base stations has not been finalized, there is already enough medical and scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns for companies deploying

1004:, as of 2009, says that there is no demonstrated short-term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long-term effects, and that it is easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements. A 2020 study in 1055:(FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) a Congressionally chartered scientific organization located in the WDC area and the 823:, but noted that research on low frequency effects and effects in humans was sparse. A 2012 study of low-frequency radiation on humans found "no evidence for acute effects of short-term mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow". 3400:

Gandhi, Om P.; Morgan, L. Lloyd; de Salles, Alvaro Augusto; Han, Yueh-Ying; Herberman, Ronald B.; Davis, Devra Lee (14 October 2011). "Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children".

2048:"Press Announcements - Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the recent National Toxicology Program Draft Report on Radiofrequency Energy Exposure" 1232: 1196:

classified electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting.

859:

in humans, however concluding also that "... the evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to establish a direct relationship". Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies due to insufficient adequate studies.

615:

and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population", but also that "it is a sensible precautionary approach ... to keep the situation under ongoing review ...". In a 2018 statement, the

4912: 796:

WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time. Michael Clark of the HPA says published research on mobile phones and

1134:, a prominent British barrister. This application was denied on the basis that the government had demonstrated that 5G was as safe as 4G, and that the applicants had brought their action too late. 1033: 588: 2077:"Health impact of 5G: current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies" 1282:

The FDA is quoted as saying that it "...continues to believe that the current safety limits for cellphone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health."

792:(HPA) says that if a person spends one year in a location with a WiFi hot spot, they will receive the same dose of radio waves as if they had made a 20-minute call on a mobile phone. 1625: 879:(RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on the reproductive systems are currently under active debate. A 2012 review concluded that "together, the results of these studies have shown that 773:

Users of wireless networking devices are typically exposed for much longer periods than for mobile phones and the strength of wireless devices is not significantly less. Whereas a

758:

equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to people, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the

1942:

Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kännälä S, et al. (2012). "No effects of short-term GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using positron emission tomography".

2359:

La Vignera S.; Condorelli R. A.; Vicari E.; D'Agata R.; Calogero A. E. (2012). "Effects of the Exposure to Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature".

788:

However, wireless routers are typically located significantly farther away from users' heads than a phone the user is handling, resulting in far less exposure overall. The

733:

poles. In general, millimetre waves penetrate less deeply into biological tissue than microwaves, and are mainly absorbed within the first centimetres of the body surface.

1056: 3363: 1826: 1277: 3989: 2537: 819:

A 2010 review stated that "The balance of experimental evidence does not support an effect of 'non-thermal' radio frequency fields" on the permeability of the

3267:

Manning, MI and Gabriel, CHB, SAR tests on mobile phones used with and without personal hands-free kits, SARtest Report 0083 for the DTI, July 2000 (PDF) at

3017: 917:

during and after use. Studies have failed to link any of these symptoms to electromagnetic exposure. In addition, EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis.

3145: 887:". A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to 3974: 1244:

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children. An article by Gandhi et al. in 2006 states that children receive higher levels of

1193: 592: 1066:

acceptable levels for brief exposures to small regions of the body, and reduced the maximum amount of exposure permitted over a small region of the body.

838: 591:(1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect. In 2011, 3246: 1301:

published a warning that "Scam artists follow the headlines to promote products that play off the news – and prey on concerned people."

1252:

of the brain decreasing as one gets older and the higher relative volume of the exposed growing brain in children, radiation penetrates far beyond the

4583: 3047:

Wiedemann; et al. (2006). "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust".

2803:[Specifications of the Regulation on Non-Ionizing Radiation: Mobile Telephone Installations] (in German). Bundesamt für Umwelt . 13 March 2009 1130:

In the UK Legal Action Against 5G sought a Judicial Review of the government's plan to deploy 5G. If successful, the group was to be represented by

4082: 3452: 3194: 1985: 1365: 1271: 3479: 3165: 1127:

were the result of prolonged mobile phone use in professional tasks, for 5–6 hours a day, which they ruled different from non-professional use.

3943: 3374:. Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM) et l'Union Nationale des Associations Familiales (UNAF) . 31 January 2007. Archived from 3344: 277: 2935: 851:

A 2021 review found "limited" but "sufficient" evidence for radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz to be related to

1492: 1227: 283: 1761:

Röösli, Martin (1 June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review".

872:

has been observed over several decades. Studies on the impact of mobile radiation on male fertility are conflicting, and the effects of the

5001: 4175: 3969: 3883: 3547:, the 2007 scientific assessment of the European Commission's SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). 1708:

Rubin, G James; Munshi, Jayati Das; Wessely, Simon (2005). "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies".

1629: 1330: 809: 620:

said that "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of Radio-frequency energy exposure".

480: 2492:

Röösli, Martin (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review".

848:

said that "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure".

3115: 2887: 4849: 4402: 3602: 1223: 295: 3555: 4991: 4981: 4955: 4887: 3918: 3224: 674: 542: 4533: 3190: 1052: 596: 3271: 3220: 929:, two small studies exploring whether and how mobile phone radiation affects brain glucose metabolism showed inconsistent results. 4834: 4408: 4205: 4136: 3984: 1168: 908: 767: 3340: 2568: 1201: 770:

but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by affected people.

3570: 3375: 1830: 1390: 2843: 2076: 1694: 2443:

Lewis Ryan C.; Mínguez-Alarcón Lidia; Meeker John D.; Williams Paige L.; Mezei Gabor; Ford Jennifer B.; Hauser Russ (2017).

4779: 4751: 4588: 4538: 4190: 4050: 1018: 406: 158: 3524: 2564:"Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment" 2102: 4844: 4355: 2722: 1062:

Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain "sensitive areas" (classrooms, for example).

998:

childcare facilities should be better integrated into the city scape and was not included in a 2005 expert report. The

845: 143: 1519: 4476: 4471: 4456: 4448: 4360: 4075: 3806: 2051: 1164: 396: 1403: 1204:, and Sweden, have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are: 1222:

in a statement in November 2000, as they believed that exposure was increased. However, measurements for the (then)

4854: 4730: 4504: 4038: 3893: 3866: 3544: 3025: 233: 2965: 2822: 1248:(SAR). When 5- and 10-year-olds are compared to adults, they receive about 153% higher SAR levels. Also, with the 4496: 3923: 3776: 3021: 1322: 1189: 1148: 926: 876: 575: 386: 2275: 2217:"Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro" 2121: 4996: 4932: 4311: 4252: 3861: 3635: 1298: 1245: 1105:

and death. In US federal courts, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a

988: 789: 608: 3771: 1297:

Products have been advertised that claim to shield people from EM radiation from mobile phones; in the US the

820: 2874: 4897: 4892: 4316: 3801: 3595: 3254: 1152: 869: 2047: 4864: 4593: 4578: 4543: 4219: 4068: 4042: 3953: 3627: 2577: 2494: 1717: 1006: 832: 797: 564: 535: 497: 243: 1651:

Foster, Kenneth R (March 2007). "Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs utilizing Wi-Fi technology".

4976: 4907: 4811: 4725: 4372: 4350: 4131: 4046: 3781: 3509: 1012: 914: 650: 431: 288: 3456: 2823:"New Guidelines Released by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)" 1600: 979: 665:, and all the phones in a cell communicate with that cell's antenna. Both the phone and the tower have 2800: 17: 4829: 4294: 4195: 4121: 3903: 3791: 3748: 3698: 3550: 2951: 2913: 2737: 2503: 2228: 1770: 1340: 1131: 416: 1722: 1545: 4718: 4713: 4638: 4486: 4148: 4020: 3979: 3898: 3811: 1345: 1335: 960: 690: 583: 3292: