Slashdot Mirror

The refrences in the section

"BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE (100 k H z â"300 GHz)" of

EMF guidelines - 1998
Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998,

to be found on http://www.icnirp.de/PubEMF.htm#

gives a brief overview about the library-filling study results which cause the ICNIRP to set the recommended limits as they are set today.

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10,000,000:1 difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

or even better, see page 3 of FCC OET Bulletin 56, which is a Q&A on Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf

People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.

In the U.S., the standard for specifically what frequencies and power levels are considered safe is the IEEE C95.1 standard, which is unfortunately not freely available, however there's a an overview here: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/uploads/media/AG_07.pdf

This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.

But if you really want something to "bite your teeth on", have a look at the international ICNIRP guidelines: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

Now, if you go through the MATH of how close you have to be to the antennas of a cell tower for it to be "unsafe", the result is pretty interesting:

Spec limit for human-absorbed power per IEEE C95-1 at 900 MHz: 50 Watts/m^2
13 dBi gain = gain of 20
EIRP = 20 W transmitted power * gain of 20 = 400 W
400 W / 4*pi*R^2 = 50 W/m^2
R = 0.636 meters
0.636 meters = 2.09 feet

So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.

The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe the limit is 10 W/kg SAR. SAR stands for "Specific Absorption Rate". What you really want to know is "what SAR power level is unsafe?", and the answer is that in lab t

Cell phones cannot cause cancer.

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10 million to one difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

or even better, see page 3 of FCC OET Bulletin 56, which is a Q&A on Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf

People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.

In the U.S., the standard for specifically what frequencies and power levels are considered safe is the IEEE C95.1 standard, which is unfortunately not freely available, however there's a an overview here: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/uploads/media/AG_07.pdf

This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.

But if you really want something to "bite your teeth on", have a look at the international ICNIRP guidelines: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

Now, if you go through the MATH of how close you have to be to the antennas of a cell tower for it to be "unsafe", the result is pretty interesting:

Spec limit for human-absorbed power per IEEE C95-1 at 900 MHz: 50 Watts/m^2
13 dBi gain = gain of 20
EIRP = 20 W transmitted power * gain of 20 = 400 W
400 W / 4*pi*R^2 = 50 W/m^2
R = 0.636 meters
0.636 meters = 2.09 feet

So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.

The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe t

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection published a document containing all the information one could possibly want.. Read the conclusions section if nothing else.

"The UV band in general is absolutely considered to be ionizing."

No, it is not "in general".

See http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2111.html.

and http://ehs.uky.edu/biosafety/uv_radiation.html

and http://yarchive.net/env/ultraviolet_dna_damage.html

and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html#ultraviolet

and http://www.icnirp.de/PubOptical.htm

Again, vacuum ultraviolet is something people will never come into contact with since you'd literally have to be in a vacuum to do so.
So in terms of the UV that anyone cares about from a health standpoint, it is not ionizing.

At frequencies above 10 MHz, the derived electric and magnetic field strengths were obtained from the whole-body SAR basic restriction using computational and experimental data. In the worst case, the energy coupling reaches a maximum between 20 MHz and several hundred MHz. In this frequency range, the derived reference levels have minimum values. The derived magnetic field strengths were calculated from the electric field strengths by using the far-field relationship between E and H (E/H = 377 ohms). In the near-field, the SAR frequency dependence curves are no longer valid; moreover, the contributions of the electric and magnetic field components have to be considered separately.
For a conservative approximation, field exposure levels can be used for near-field assessment since the coupling of energy from the electric or magnetic field contribution cannot exceed the SAR restrictions. For a less conservative assessment, basic restrictions on the
whole-body average and local SAR should be used.

Some links relevant to the program...

The Stewart Report summary:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/summary.htm
(there's a link to the full text there too)

ICNIRP Publications
http://www.icnirp.de/pubEMF.htm

Karolinska Institutet:
http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=130&l=en

Long-Term Sickness and Mobile Phone Use:
http://www.acnem.org/journal/pdf_files/23-2-septem ber_2004/23-2_mobile_phones-hallberg.pdf
PDF; a paper co-authored by Olle Johannson. It wasn't directly mentioned on the program but I guess has informed his views.

Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/G78U43 45510209JQ.pdf
PDF; authored by Olle Johannson.

Powerwatch:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/

The telegraph article that seemed to be the source of the "teachers demand no wifi" section of the program:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/04/23/nwifi23.xml

This isn't supposed to be an unbiased list of views; it's just links relevant to the program (which in my view, wasn't unbiased). Anyway - read, look for more, and make your own mind up.

(posted AC; I don't need the Karma)