Wireless device radiation and health
[3] 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.
In 2018 the Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute study of cell phone radiation and cancer published its results and conclusion that 'The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats.
In general, millimetre waves penetrate less deeply into biological tissue than microwaves, and are mainly absorbed within the first centimetres of the body surface.
The Health Protection Agency (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.
"[7] In October 2007, the HPA launched a new "systematic" study into the effects of 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.
[18][19] Modulation of neurological function is possible using radiation in the range hundreds of GHz up to a few THz at relatively low energies (without significant heating or ionisation) achieving either beneficial or harmful effects.
[20][21] The relevant frequencies for neurological interaction are at or beyond the upper end of what is typically employed for consumer wireless devices and are thus expected to have poor penetration into human tissue.
Many of the studies referenced in the review [21] examined rodents rather than humans, thus overcoming the screening typically provided by the thicker skulls of larger mammals.
[38] According to the National Cancer Institute, two small studies exploring whether and how mobile phone radiation affects brain glucose metabolism showed inconsistent results.
[1] A report from the Australian Government's Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in June 2017 noted that: The 2010 WHO Research Agenda identified a lack of sufficient evidence relating to children and this is still the case. ...
For cancer in particular only one completed 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). ...
[40] 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.
[41] This recommendation was modified in 2003[42] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the city scape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.
[44] A 2020 study in Environmental Research 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 cellular phone towers" and thus recommended voluntary setbacks from schools and hospitals.
[45] 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.
Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact.
[48] In the US, personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against manufacturers (including Motorola,[49] NEC, Siemens, and Nokia) on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death.
In US federal courts, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence.
[57] 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 earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.
[58] In May 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer 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.
[3] Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[59] France,[60] Germany,[61] and Sweden,[62] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens.
[63] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[64] and others for the French Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale [fr][65] showed substantial reductions.
In 2005, Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.
[68] 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.
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.
