If EMR is a threat - what can we do?

One of the first things that we can do is to check the age and SAR value of our mobile phones:

Click here to check your Mobile  Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) now!

SAR (specific absorption rate) is a measurement of how much electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by body tissue whilst using a mobile phone. The higher the SAR the more radiation is absorbed.

In Europe, the European Union Council has adopted the recommendations made by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP Guidelines 1998). These recommendations set a SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg in 10g of tissue. The UK Government has endorsed this limit (following a report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones) and the five mobile phone network operators have agreed to voluntarily adopt the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. All mobile phones on sale in the UK comply with this limit.

In the United States, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) requires all cell phones to comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg in 1g of tissue.

SAR Values
If you are interested you can check your own phone's SAR value against the SAR values list.  However, it is worth mentioning that the SAR values shown are maximum values and in practice emissions from mobile phones will normally be lower than these figures. The emissions depend on factors such as distance from a transmission mast, whether the phone is used indoors or outdoors, how close the phone is held to the ear and other operating factors. It is important to realise that a phone with a high SAR rating may actually operate with much lower emissions in practice, and conversely a phone with a lower SAR rating may operate with emissions higher than a high SAR phone in practice.

You should not rely on a low SAR rating to guarantee your health.

Another point worth noting is that SAR values are not necessarily the most appropriate metric to measure the potential risk of phones in general (as cordless phones appear to be having just as pronounced effects as mobile phones despite having about one twentieth (5%) of their SAR value). It seems that some other characteristic (the nature of the pulsing signal perhaps?) is causing the increase in cancer, by a mechanism we have not yet discovered.

What can I do to reduce the risk?

Here are some precautionary measures you can take to reduce the risk to yourself and your family:

• Assess your environment levels of phone radiation - using a screening device eg Electrosmog - this device emits a sound whenever EMR is present - you should hear nothing at all as you go around your house - but you will be surprised I suspect.
• Do not use your phone more than necessary and keep your calls short
• Send a text instead of making a call
• Try to avoid using your phone if the signal strength is low - find a better location to make a call
• Try to use the phone outdoors rather than inside, or move close to a window to make a call
• Keep the phone (and particularly the aerial) as far as possible from your head
• Avoid touching the aerial while the phone is turned on, and keep the phone away from areas of the body such as eyes, testicles, breasts and internal organs
• Limit usage as much as possible if pregnant
• Switch off your phone when not in use
• You should be aware that if the phone is receiving a very strong signal from a base station, then power output can be reduced by up to 1000 times compared with when the phone has a poor signal

  Norwegian Study on How to Combat EMR - the Biophone

A Norwegian team have conducted ground breaking research into how mobile phones effect the body’s cells. In addition, the report also introduces a technology, in the form of a Biophone button, that appears to help combat those harmful effects of EM radiation.

  (For more information re: Biophone and Bioguard, please email me: dawn@dawnheather.com)

Comments

[Dawn]

Jambo Lloyd - msouri sana.
Thank you so much for your very comprehensive response.

This is just a short acknowledgement really.

Generally speaking, I think we are guilty of bombarding our whole environment with 'waves', chemicals, and various other elements without realising the consequences - pioneering is great, but we also need to monitor effectively.

Sometimes the 'drivers' make us irresponsible it seems.

keep posting:)

[Lloyd Morgan]

Hujambo, habari gani,
If you did not learn kiswahili during your time in East Africa, the above means Hello, What's the news (I lived in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania for 2 years).

My Google alert for: "cell phone" "mobile phone" "brain tumor" "brain tumour" resulted in my receiving your blog with the above title. I am impressed! I am impressed because of the thoroughness of your report.

The first thing that I noticed was the link in the section, "You should not rely on a low SAR rating to guarantee your health." This paragraph was linked to Powerwatch where I am a columnist (http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/index.asp), but this is not why I am impressed. I am impressed because of the width and depth of your presentation.

For example when you wrote, "This [Hardell et al.] study showed that the chance of developing a malignant brain tumor was roughly eight times higher for cell phone users in the Swedish countryside than in urban areas. The risk of developing any brain tumour was four times higher for country dwellers using mobile phones for five years or more, compared with those who did not use the devices" is but one example of the consistency within the whole of the Hardell et al. papers.

What do I mean by consistency?
If the cellphone emits more power then the risk, if any, of a brain tumor should increase. The reason that cellphones emit more power in rural areas is that digital cellphones use a technique call Adaptive Power Control (APC). APC allows the cell tower (masks in the UK) to reduce the cellphone's power to the lowest level that allows a reliable link. In rural, compared to urban areas, the cellphone is much farther from a cell tower than in urban areas. Therefore in rural areas cellphones emit more power.

Children are at greater risk from any carcinogen than adults because there rate of cell division is much higher. Hardell et al. showed that 20-29 year olds (some were teenagers when they first began using a cellphone) were at much greater risk than other age groups.

Though there is a minimum latency time from exposure to diagnosis of a tumor, for the same length of time, you would expect the group who has used a cellphone for a higher cumulative time would have a higher risk than those who have used a cellphone for less cumulative time. Again, Hardell et al. have shown this to be true.

You will find that I am a coauthor for the study where you reported, "The authors found 11 studies on people who had used mobile phones for more than a decade. Some of these showed that mobile phone use significantly increased the risk of some types of brain cancer while others did not."

Most of these 11 studies were from the 13-country Interphone Study. This Study has substantial funding from the cellphone industry. While I have every reason to believe that the researchers are honest, they all have to follow the Interphone Study Protocol. I have identified 6 flaws in this Protocol, 5 of them independently result in an underestimation of brain tumor risk from cellphone use. For more information see my Powerwatch column at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp).

While the Hardell studies have an internal consistency, the Interphone studies are inconsistent.

What do I mean by inconsistent?
Again, and again, Interphone studies report statistically significant results that use of a cellphone protects the user from a brain tumor (i.e., the Odds Ratio, or OR, is less than 1.0). These results are most likely due to 5 of the 6 flaws I list in the column cited above. Either that or cellphone do protect the user from risk of a brain tumor.

One of the studies (Christensen et al.) showed that the brain tumors in cellphone users were smaller than in non-users.

Interphone Consistency
However, there are 3 Interphone studies that show a risk of brain tumor from cellphone use. Interestingly, for each of these studies, cellphones had been used for ten or more years and the tumor was on the same side of the head where the cellphone was held. This is consistent with expectations: 1) All of the radiation emitted by a cellphone is on the side of the head where the cellphone was used (none of the radiation is on the opposite side of the head). 2) Brain tumors have a long latency time so risks do not show up for a considerable time.

Apparently the 5 flaws where not sufficiently able to underestimate the group at highest risk within these 3 Interphone studies.

Why do I write all this? Because I want to offer you all, or as much as you need, of the information I have about cellphones.

Best regards,
Lloyd Morgan