Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Review Article
Introduction
A large number of individuals (>109 world wide)
are exposed to the radiofrequency (RF) signals from
cellular phones and other personal communication
services and the number is increasing exponentially.
Because the mobile phones and other wireless gadgets
are held close to the body and are used frequently,
these devices are potentially the most dangerous
sources of electromagnetic radiation that the average
person possesses. Therefore, mobile phone appears to
be one of the major biological exposure1. This has
given rise to an increasing concern for any unknown
effects that may be potentially detrimental to the
human health. Antennas of modern mobile telephones
are located close to the head and the radiations from
base stations are distributed all over in areas around it.
Mobile telephones emit radiations that are intercepted
in the proximity of the brain and cranial nerves. There
is now an added worry if these radiations are
carcinogenic or tumor promoter or have any other
health implications. Keeping these in view, special
Telephone: 91-011-26704323
Fax: 91-11-26717502, 26715886
E-mail- jbehari@hotmail.com
960
Fig. 1In terms of the electromagnetic spectrum, cell phones fall between microwave ovens and TV transmitters. Such radiation, though
non-ionizing, can induce biologically significant effects
961
962
cell
population
between
plating
and
radiofrequency/microwave
(RF/MW)
radiation
exposure. Inherent differences in cell size and shape,
composition of cell membranes, organelle
distribution, junctional coupling between adjacent
cells, stages of the cell cycle, and other parameters
that cannot be controlled will also contribute to
different amounts of energy absorption by the cells.
Definition of the problem
Using a mobile phone generate magnetic pulses
that peak at several tens of micro tesla, while
biological effects are reported around 0.2T17,18. In
the process of electromagnetic (EM) propagation,
radiation falls on the population. Energy intercepted
by the human body (or any other biological object)
and subsequently absorbed is dependent upon several
parameters viz, part body/full body exposure, l/
(length of the body, wavelength of incident radiation),
resonant absorption, deviation and signal type
(pulsating sine, triangular etc), polarization of the
radiation, coupling of the energy to the body and if
the body is grounded or not. In the phones used the
field emissions may extend over a wide range, which
may have different mode of interaction. Also at any
instance of time differentiation between thermal and
nonthermal effect or their combination is difficult to
distinguish16. Obviously these parameters are
uncontrollable and hence the amount of energy
deposited rather uncertain, which makes the
estimation of effects and safe exposure criteria open
for question.
When EM fields pass from one medium to another,
they can be reflected, refracted, transmitted or
absorbed, depending on the complex conductivity of
the exposed body and the frequency of the source.
Absorbed RF energy can be converted to other form
of energy and cause interference with the functioning
of the living system. Most of this energy is converted
into heat (absorption). However, not all EM field
effects can be explained in terms of energy absorption
and conversion by this process. At frequencies well
below 100 kHz, it has been shown that induced
electric fields can stimulate nervous tissue and at the
microscopic level, other interactions have been
observed.
Role of ELF componentsLow frequency
component has been a source of signal transmission in
the biological media. While estimating the biological
implications, it is therefore imperative that their role
may be assessed.
d
dt
dw d (dw)
=
dm dt dv
SAR =
cT
t
t=0
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
exposure
precisely.
For
epidemiological
investigations it often suffices to have a certain
gradient of exposures. As long as any two persons can
be
differentiated
along
such
a
gradient
epidemiological investigations can be relevant.
There are several field studies of well being and
exposure to base stations signals available to date.
Two were in occupational groups working in a
building below180 or below as well as opposite a
building with a roof mounted base station antenna181.
The other five were in neighbors of base stations:
Santini et al.182,183, Navarro et al.184, Hutter et al.185,
Blettner et al.186 and Thomas et al.187. Studies had
different methodologies with the least potential for
bias in the studies of Hutter et al.185 and Blettner
et al186. All other studies could be biased due to self
selection of study participants. One study explored
personal dosimetry during 24 h but results were
inconclusive due to insufficient power and omission
of nighttime measurements187. The study of Blettner
et al.186 had an interesting design with a first phase in
a large population based representative sample and a
second phase with individual measurements in the
bedrooms of participants that were a subgroup of the
larger sample. Unfortunately this second sample did
not contain a sufficiently large fraction of individuals
with relevant exposure (99% had bedside
measurements below 0.3mW/m2).
Despite some methodological limitations of the
different studies there are still strong indications that
long term exposure near base stations affects well
being. Symptoms most often associated with
exposure were headaches, concentration difficulties,
restlessness and tremor. Sleeping problems were also
related to distance from base station or power density,
but it is possible that these results are confounded by
concerns about adverse effects of the base station, or
more generally, by specific personality traits. While
the data are insufficient to delineate a threshold for
adverse effects the lack of observed effects at
fractions of an mW/m2 suggests that exposure around
0.5-1 mW/m2 must be exceeded in order to observe an
effect.
Reference
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Conclusion
While a lot of data have accumulated on the
biological effects of extremely low and mobile phone
frequency exposure, many are contradictory and need
to be explored further, particularly in relation to
human being. There is a need for more independent
replications of above findings.
975
15
976
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
977
978
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
979
980
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
981