Cellular Phone:
Lecture Notes of Dr. Irvine

 Back


Posted:
4 May 2000

.......Fay Cannonhill of the U.K. fay@cannonhill.fsnet.co.uk has forwarded the following document to us.....

Dr. Helene Irvine is the Public Health Consultant to the Glasgow Health Board.  In February, 2000 she presented a seminar to the National Society of the U.K. for Clean Air and Environment on the subject:  scientific and health aspects of the cellular phones and their masts (towers in U.S.).

The document below contains her lecture notes from which that seminar was conducted.  I consider that it presents an excellent outline "broad view" of the total cell phone and tower or mast issue in its scientific aspects at that date........guru........

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness

People are more important than profits!!


Cellphone Technology – Public Health Effects?

Dr. Helene Irvine

Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Communicable Disease and Environmental Health

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Honorary Senior Lecturer in Public Health Medicine

Department of Public Health

University of Glasgow
 
 

AGM and Seminar: Electromagnetic fields, Telecommunication Masts and Mobile Phones

National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection

Moat House Hotel, 15 February 2000

Environmental levels of EMF







"Electromagnetic fields occur in nature, however, man-made fields are generally much larger. Environmental exposure to man-made EMF has steadily increased throughout this century and public awareness of the possible risks from exposure to man-made EMF has been mounting."

Philip Chadwick and Zenon Sienkiewicz

WHO Draft Document Electromagnetic Fields 1998


 
 

"There is evidence of a ten-fold increase in radiofrequency radiation in Western cities and towns over the past 20 years with the profile changing from mainly UHF and VHF to mainly cellphone microwave radiation."

Yngve Hamnerius and Thomas Uddmar. Microwave exposure from mobile phones and base stations. Presented at Mobitel conference on Cellphones, Gothenburg, September 1999. In press.
 
 

Scientific evidence of non-thermal, biological effects

The published peer-reviewed literature base describes a wide range of biological effects in animal models and human cells in vitro at low, so-called non-thermal, levels of intensity.

Various biological effects have been reported at SAR below 0.08 W/kg or power densities (depending on the frequency) of 2-10 W/m2 .

These include effects on:

  • Cell proliferation
  • Calcium ion efflux and cell membrane transport generally
  • Blood brain permeability
  • Sleep patterns
  • Behaviour
  • Level of hormone: Melatonin
  • Level of an Enzyme: Ornithine Decarboxylase

  •  
     
     
     

    Specific studies showing biological effects

    Albumin leakage through the blood brain barrier in rats at SARs ranging from 0.016 to 5 W/kg (Salford et al 1994) and other changes in this barrier at an SAR of just 0.0004 W/kg (Salford et al 1997).

    Changes in the behaviour in rats (avoidance reflex) at a SAR of .0027 W/kg and a drop of testosterone at 0.027 W/kg (Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya 1994).

    Changes in white blood cells function, prolonged reaction time, lower short-term memory scores were identified at power densities of 0-4 m W/cm2 in school students (Chiang et al 1989).

    Detection of heat-shock proteins at a SAR range of 0.000021 – 0.0021 W/kg. (Kwee and Raskmark 1998).

    A decrease in reproductive functions in mice at intensities of 160-1053 m W/cm2. (Magras and Xenos 1997).

    Decreased eating and drinking behaviour in rats at an SAR of 0.0317 W/kg. (Ray S and Behari 1990).

    A change in calcium ion efflux enhancement from human and other nerve cells at an SAR of 0.05-.005 W/kg. (Dutta, Ghosh and Blackman 1989).

    DNA damage in human white cells at an SAR range of 0.0024-0.024 W/kg. (Phillips et al 1998.)
     
     
     
     

    Why is the evidence of non-thermal, biological effects not considered relevant by the advisory bodies?

  • Does not directly relate to illness in humans.
  • General Public Levels
    Frequency

    MHz

    E field

    V/m

    Power

    W/m2

    Power

    mW/cm2

    NRPB, 1993

    (Current UK Investigation Levels)

    900

    1800

    112

    194

    33

    100

    3300

    10000

    FCC OET65:1997-01 (USA)

    based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992

    900

    1800

    47 

    61 

    6

    10

    600

    1000

    Canadian Safety Code 6 (SC6)

    1993

    900

    1800

    47 

    61 

    6

    10

    600

    1000

    ICNIRP, 1998 (recognised by WHO)

    CENELEC, 1995 (EU)

    900

    1800

    41

    58

    4.5

    9

    450

    900

    Australia 1988 (under review)
    900 / 1800
    27
    2
    200
    Two USA research bases (1995)
    30 - 100000
    19 
    1
    100
    Poland (non-stationary people)

    (stationary people)

    300 - 300000
    19

    6

    1

    0.1

    100

    10

    Russia 1988 (general public)
    300 - 300000
    6
    0.1
    10
    Italy, Decree 381 (1999)
    30 - 30000
    6
    0.1
    10
    Toronto Health Board

    2000, proposal based on SC6/100

    900

    1800

    5

    0.06

    0.1

    6

    10

    Swiss Ordinance ORNI ( for base

    stations ) From 1st.Feb.2000

    900

    1800

    4

    not

    specified

    not

    specified

    EU & UK EMC Regulations equipment suspect test level (domestic & comm.)
    30 - 2000
    3

    any signal

    not

    specified

    not

    specified

    Typical max in public areas near base station masts (can be much higher)
    900 & 1800
    2
    0.01
    1
    Dr Cherry (NZ) proposal for now

    aiming for a level by 2010

    300 - 300000
    0.15

    0.06

    0.00005

    0.00001

    0.005

    0.001

    Average US (EPA 1980)----->

    City Dweller max (FCC 1999)----->

    approx

    30 - 300000

    < 0.13

    < 2

    < 0.00005

    < 0.01

    < 0.005

    < 1

    Broadband ‘natural’ background
    300 - 3000 
    < 0.00003
    < 0.00000001
    < 0.000001
    ** Typical, close to handset antenna
    900 & 1800
    50 - 300
    2 - 50
    200 - 5000
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    ** ‘Near-field’ levels next to a working mobile phone handset vary enormously depending on the antenna design but can often exceed the electric field and power density levels set in the general exposure standards.
     
     
     

    The Uncertainty Factor


     Back to Top

    Back