> 360 URLs
WELCOME to williamson-labs.com   --HOME
> 90 Subjects
Tree Hugger Free Zone

Cellular -Telephones

+  Health-
-Issues +
Tree Hugger Free Zone
  abcnews 20/20 exposé
  Cellphones & Driving  nhtsa paper
  Cellular Basics--Outstanding!
  microwavenews LINKS page
      More LINKS:

Read "Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: 
An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage"    by George Louis Carlo, Martin Schram

Bag Phones
More Safe
Most Safe
Cellphone Head/Hand Interface Radiation Pattern
  Emitted R.F. Energy: Absorption ver Radiated
   What Does all this Mean?
(1) Under the best conditions, less than 45% of Emitted R.F. Energy from the Cellphone is Propagated as a useful incident Signal: The Remaining Energy is Absorbed by the Head!

(2) Presently the Frequencies used by the Cellular Handset are:  824 MHz - 849 MHz

(3) Coincidentally there are two microwave frequencies in general use for Microwaves Ovens:
915 Mhz and 2450 Mhz. [1]

(4) As can be seen in the plot below, human body tissue is vulnerable to Electromagnetic Waves covering a wide range of frequencies, with Cellphone frequencies conformably in the middle!

(5) How much Power is really involved, and is it harmful? 
Typical powers transmitted by the latest "flip-fones" range from a few hundred milliWatts to nearly seven tents of a Watt (0.7 Watts). (This varies under the control of the Cellular basestation: the weaker the connection the more power the handset is made to send.) 

In earlier cellphones, like the "bag phone," this wasn't of concern; however with the advent of the very compact cellphones with their short stubby antennas that rest against the skull (just above the ear) the amount of concentrated Electromagnetic Energy easily Exceeds an amount considered safe by most U.S. regulatory agencies; and more than 10 times what European agencies consider safe. 

(6) OK, OK, I hear what you say, but I love my Cellphone, and I ain't giving it up; besides most of my friends wont recognize me if they don't see me with my cellphone clutched up next to my ear!

So What can I do to make it less Unsafe?
 1_ ALWAYS EXTEND the collapsible Antenna! I know it ain't COOL, but you can reduce YOUR exposure by ~ 50% to ~ 100%.  It also improves the connection, thus allowing the base station to reduce the handset's power output.

   2_ Hold the handset at an ANGLE that puts that antenna as far away from YOUR head as possible.

   3_ Purchase an accessory head-set and place the phone away from your head (and your groin area).

   4_ Finally, the most EFFECTIVE way to minimize YOUR EXPOSURE is: Use the Cellphone as little as possible!  Use Land lines whenever possible; besides, on a cellphone, you never know WHO is LISTENING to your private conversations!

  (7) Read what the CTIA's main defender of the "cellphones are safe" line, had to say to the Chairman and CEO  of AT&T: Letter from Dr. George Carlo

[1] These are two of the frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for Industrial Scientific and Medical Use (sometimes called the ISM frequencies).

Dielectric Properties of Human Body Tissues at RF and Microwave Frequencies
Letter from Dr. George Carlo
the CTIA's main defender of the "cellphones are safe" line to the Chairman and CEO  of AT&T
7 October 1999 

Mr. C. Michael Armstrong
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
AT & T Corporation
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 100313-2412

Dear Mr Armstrong: 

After much thought, I am writing this letter to you, personally, to ask your assistance in solving what I believe is an emerging and serious problem concerning wireless phones. I write this letter in the interest of the more than 80 million wireless phone users in the United States and the more than 200 million worldwide. But I also write this letter in the interest of your industry, a critical part of our social and economic infrastructure. 

Since 1993, I have headed the WTR surveillance and research program funded by the wireless industry. The goal of WTR has always been to identify and solve any problems concerning consumers' health that could arise from the use of these phones. This past February, at the annual convention of the CTIA, I met with the full board of that organization to brief them on some surprising findings from our work. I do not recall if you were there personally, but my understanding is that all segments of the industry were represented. 

At that briefing, I explained that the well-conducted scientific studies that WTR was overseeing indicated that the question of wireless phone safety had become confused. 

Specifically, I reported to you that:
The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head;

The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the auditory nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone's antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve: 

The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones;

There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumours occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;

Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose-response relationship.

I also indicated that while our overall study of brain cancer occurrence did not show a correlation with cell phone use, the vast majority of the tumours that were studied, were well out of range of the radiation that one would expect from a cell phone's antenna. Because of that distance, the finding of no effect was questionable. Such mis-classification of radiation exposure would tend to dilute any real effect that may have been present. In addition, I reported to you that the genetic damage studies we conducted to look at the ability of radiation from the phones to break DNA were negative, but that the positive finding of functional DNA damage could be more important, perhaps indicating a problem that is not dependent on DNA breakage, and that these inconsistencies needed to be clarified. I reported that while none of these findings alone were evidence of a definitive health hazard from wireless phones, the pattern of potential health effects evidenced by different types of studies, from different laboratories, and by different investigators raised serious questions. 

Following my presentation, I heard by voice vote of those present, a pledge to "do the right thing in following up these findings" and a commitment of the necessary funds. 

When I took on the responsibility of doing this work for you, I pledged five years. I was asked to continue on through the end of a sixth year, and agreed. My tenure is now completed. My presentation to you and the CTIA board in February was not an effort to lengthen my tenure at WTR, nor to lengthen the tenure of WTR itself. I was simply doing my job of letting you know what we found and what needed to be done following from our findings. I made this expressly clear during my presentation to you and in many subsequent conversation with members of your industry and the media. 

Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety. The steps I am referring to specifically followed from the WTR program and have been recommended repeatedly in public and private for and by me and other experts from around the world. As I prepare to move away from the wireless phone issue and into a different public health direction. I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection.

Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow up by calling for and supporting more research. The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgement by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health. 

I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash. 

As an industry, you will have to deal with the fallout from all of your choices, good and bad, in the long term. But short term, I would like your help in effectuating an important public health intervention today. 

The question of wireless phone safety is unclear. Therefore, from a public health perspective, it is critical for consumers to have the information they need to make an informed judgement about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of wireless phones. Informing consumers openly and honestly about what is known and not-known about health risks is not liability laden - it is evidence that your industry is being responsible, and doing all it can to assure safe use of its products. The current popular backlash we are witnessing in the United States today against the tobacco industry is derived in large part from perceived dishonesty on the part of that industry in not being forthright about health effects. I urge you to help your industry not repeat that mistake. 
As we close out the business of the WTR, I would like to openly ask for your help in distributing the summary findings we have complied of our work. This last action is what always has been anticipated and forecast in the WTR's research agenda. I have asked another organization with which I am affiliated, The Health Risk Management Group (HRMG), to help us with this public health intervention step, and to put together a consumer information package for widespread distribution. Because neither WTR nor HRMG have the means to effectuate this intervention, I am asking you to help us do the right thing. 

I would be happy to talk to you personally about this.

   Sincerely yours,

George L. Carlo Ph.D, M.S., J.D. 
Chairman Wireless Technology Research LLC
1711 N. Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036-2811

(202) 785 3939 telephone (202) 785-3940 facsimile
wtr@hrmgroup.org e-mail
fooshu@aol.com fooshu@aol.com jtukey@popmail.ucsd.edu



 Copyright 1999  2000   2001   Questions about this site: webmaster
Cellular Handset USA 824-849 Cellular Tower USA 869-894 Cellular USA 1850-1990 Mobile Frequencies (cell phone) 824.0 - 835.0 Mhz Nonwireline 835.0 - 845.0 Mhz Wireline (Bell) 845.0 - 846.5 Mhz Nonwireline 846.5 - 849.0 Mhz Wireline (Bell) Base Frequencies (cell tower) 869.0 - 880.0 Mhz Nonwireline 880.0 - 890.0 Mhz Wireline (Bell) 890.0 - 891.5 Mhz Nonwireline 891.5 - 894.0 Mhz Wireline (Bell) The frequencies used in Cellphones and other wireless devices, are the same as those used for Microwave Cooking. Central Michigan area cellphone frequencies. 895.237 895.862 896.500 897.125 898.387 898.600 899.650 899.862 900.275 900.912 902.562 904.450 905.712 906.325 906.975 907.600 908.225 908.862 909.075 ---------------- 1800 MHz Cellular Handset 824 MHz - 849 MHz There are two microwave frequencies in general use for Microwaves Ovens: 915 Mhz (wavelength is 32 cm or about 12.5") 2450 Mhz (wavelength is 12 cm or about 5") These are two of the frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for Industrial Scientific and Medical Use (sometimes called the ISM frequencies). Notes: Rfmw standards are based on frequency ranges and resonance Subresonant (<3 MHz) - Body and parts do not function as good antennas. Current flow considerations dominant throughout. Resonant (3 MHz - 6 GHz) - Body becomes good antenna which maximized absorption. Current flow and SAR (dose) both important considerations (current flow greater than or equal to 100 MHz). Absorption falls of in proportion to square of frequency from 3 - 30 MHz. Standards most stringent from 30 - 300 MHz. In transition to next region (from 300 MHz - 3 GHz) adsorption drops off linearly as frequency increases. Superesonant (6 GHz - 300 GHz) - Body no longer acts as good antenna, absorption at ~ 1/10 peak absorption. Quasi-optical focusing from 6 - 15 GHz. Skin absorption dominant > 15 GHz (penetration < 1 cm). TOP Notes: The time-averaging concept can be illustrated as follows. The sum of the product (or products) of the actual exposure level(s) times the actual times(s) of exposure must not be greater then the allowed (average) exposure limit times the specified averaging time. This means that, at 100 MHz, exposure at 2 mW/cm2 would be permitted for 3 minutes in any 6-minute period as long as during the remaining 3 minutes of the 6-minute period the exposure was at or near "zero" level of exposure. Similarly, during any 6-minute period, exposure at 1.5 mW/cm2 would be allowed for 4 total minutes if exposures during the remaining 2 minutes were zero. Another example, 1.5 mW/cm2 would be allowed for 3 minutes and 0.5 mW/cm2 would be allowed for the remaining 3 minutes of a 6-minute period. Therefore, in the first example: (2 mW/cm2) X (3 min.) + (0 mW/cm2) X (3 min.) = (1 mW/cm2) X (6 min.) In the second example: (1.5 mW/cm2) X (4 min.) + (0 mW/cm2) X (3 min.) = (1 mW/cm2) X (6 min.) And, in the third example: (1.5 mW/cm2) X (3 min.) + (0.5 mW/cm2) X (3 min.) = (1 mW/cm2) X (6 min.) TOP