Macopinion

Cellphone And Wireless Computer Networking Safety Revisited

This is a topic that just keeps coming back. On December 9, 1999, I posted a The Road Warrior column titled "How Safe Is Wireless Computer Networking?," which proved to be one of the all-time biggest reader mail generators of my Mac Web writing career. That was of course just a few months after Apple's Airport wireless technology had debuted with the original clamshell iBook, and nearly three months before the first PowerBook with internal wireless support (the PowerBook 2000 Pismo ) was released.

I will cop to being a wireless worrywart from the get-go, commenting in '99: "I'm concerned that virtually no attention is apparently being paid to the issue of possible health hazards associated with long-term-routine exposure to the radio frequencies generated by these systems." More than nine years after that article was published. I'm still concerned.

I continued: "I am suggesting that the issue of wireless networking ought to be addressed with a lot more prudent caution than seems to be the case. The thought of classrooms full of schoolchildren using AirPort-equipped iMacs or iBooks day in and day out, being exposed to radio frequency emissions at close range, makes me distinctly uneasy given the level of ignorance on this issue." Of course that apprehension seems a bit quaint, now that a large proportion of schoolkids not only spend hours in classrooms (and in may cases at home as well) full of wirelessly connected computers, but also carry and use intensively cellphones.

There's no denying that both wireless computer networking and cellphones are incredibly convenient, and for good reason have become two of the most popular innovations in consumer electronics, and probably the most revolutionary one since the popularization of Internet itself. Being tethered to cables and landlines is a pain, and wireless frees you from all that, or at least much of that. It also is evidently going to become more of the norm than it already is, with the new MacBook Air, for instance, overwhelmingly oriented toward wireless connectivity and most likely a bellwether.

Environmental levels of background radio frequency and microwave background radiation have been rising by factors of thousands in the general population since the Second World War - and according to EPA estimates are increasing at about 15% per year, including radio waves from radio and TV towers, microwaves from cellphones, cell sites, mobile phones, cordless landline phones, computer LANs and microwave ovens (the latter being a minor problem compared with the others).

Health concerns associated with EMF exposure are not limited to dread diseases like cancers. CTV News reported that electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is regarded by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a real health problem, with reported symptoms - ranging from mild to severe - that include chronic fatigue, depression, body aches, memory loss and sleep disruption. The CTV report noted that Swedish and British statistics say about two or three per cent of the population suffers from EHS, while some claims estimate 10 to 25 per cent of national populations may be affected by less severe symptoms.

In a 2004 paper entitled Elecrtromagnetic Fields & Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposures to EMFs", Magda Havas, a professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, says that "We now have more than 20 years of scientific research from around the world showing adverse health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from our use of electricity. Both children and adults are affected although children appear to be more sensitive.... There is a consistent 2-to-4-fold risk of children developing leukemia when they are exposed to magnetic fields exceeding 2 to 4 mG in their homes.... Studies of occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields report an increased incidence of adult leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer at levels above 2 mG.... These studies in combination with laboratory studies lend credence to the concept that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human health at levels to which we are currently exposed to in the home, at school, and in the workplace."

Prof. Havas says: "My research deals with the health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy at the extremely low frequency range associated with electricity (60 Hertz) and at the radio frequency range commonly associated with wireless telecommunication. I am particularly interested in monitoring exposure of the population in urban centres to radio frequency radiation and power-frequency fields. Since children are more sensitive than adults to the potentially harmful effects of EMFs I have been trying to encourage school boards to measure magnetic fields within their schools as part of their health and safety program."

Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada has banned most wireless Internet access on campus until university president Fred Gilbert was satisfied that EMF (electric and magnetic fields) exposure doesn't pose a health risk, particularly to young people. Only those areas not served by the university's extensive fibre-optic backbone have a wireless option. The university's policy cites the 2006 The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS)'s Benevento Resolution, signed by several dozen prominent scientists, which states in part that:

• More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.

•  Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.

• There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.

• Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion. Gilbert told ITBusiness.ca that he based his decision on scientific literature that indicates potential for "some fairly significant" health consequences, citing studies done by scientists for the California Public Utilities Commission, whose findings boil down to the fact that while there is no proven link between EMFs exposure and diseases such as leukemia and brain tumours, the possible risk warrants further investigation.

Lakehead Unniversity's full policy statement can be found here:
http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178

All this seems to be getting blissfully ignored in the computer networking and cellphone world, and indeed Lakehead U. has borne the brunt of scornful derision for implementing its partial wireless ban. I find it noteworthy that in the dozens of commentaries and reviews of the MacBook Air I've read since its introduction I don't recall the issue of possible health effects associated with increased exposure to radio frequency electronic pollution being raised even in passing.

Consequently, reading about a new study released by Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine, which was published recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology got me thinking along these lines again.

Dr. Sadetzki and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject to a substantially higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.

Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50% for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones.

In a press release, Dr. Sadetzki says that the fact the study was done on an Israeli population is significant, since, “Unlike people in other countries, Israelis were quick to adopt cell phone technology and have continued to be exceptionally heavy users. Therefore, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation found in this study has been higher than in previous cell phone studies.

“This unique population has given us an indication that cell phone use is associated with cancer,” adds Sadetzki, whose study investigated nearly 500 people who had been diagnosed with benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland, and compared then to a control sample of about 1,300 healthy control subjects.

Not happy news.

Dr. Sadetzki's study also found an increased risk of cancer for heavy users who lived in rural areas, an explanation being that due to fewer antennas, cell phones in rural areas need to emit more radiation to communicate effectively, and she predicts that, over time, the greatest effects will be found in heavy users and children.

I expect that the cellphone industry and perhaps governments as well will attempt to discredit or at least play down these findings, as they have with previous research indicating a link between wireless communications use and cancer, but I take rote assurances of safety from industry and government regulatory sources with a large grain of salt. Whenever public concern surfaces over any health safety issue involving industrial activity or consumer products, a knee-jerk denial that there is anything to worry about can be counted on from both industry and government, and I don't appreciate reflexive and patronizing affirmations by persons with conflicted interests in this issue that advocating caution is irresponsible hysteria, and that there is "nothing to worry about."

Dr. Sadetzki notes that while anecdotal evidence of health risk associated with cellphone use has been substantial, the consistency of the results of her new study support an association between cell phone use and these tumors. The risks have been hard to prove, mainly due to the long latency period involved in cancer development. And as wireless technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, its use by a greater number of people, including children, will undoubtedly increase. “While I think this technology is here to stay,” Dr. Sadetzki says, “I believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish the exposure and lower the risk for health hazards.” She recommends that people use hands-free devices at all times, and when talking, hold the phone away from one’s body. Less frequent calls, shorter in duration, should also have some preventative effect." Good luck selling that to cellphone and texting obsessed teenagers and younger kids, or for that matter grownup iPhone and Blackberry addicts.

Personally, I'm being dragged slowly but seemingly inexorably into the wireless vortex, but I'm dragging my feet. I don't own a cellphone. My G4 PowerBook has built-in Airport and Bluetooth, and I have a PC Card WiFi adapter for my two Pismo PowerBooks, but I keep it all turned off most of the time, using Airport only for WiFi hotspots on the road. I use wired keyboards, mice, and other peripherals, and have a wired Ethernet home LAN rather than using Airport. However, when broadband Internet arrives in this neck of the (literal) woods later this year or maybe next, it will be in the form of wireless service, so I will need a wireless modem, which hopefully will be able to be situated well away from my workstation and connected to the computers via Ethernet.

I'm not staking out an advocacy position that RF emissions from these systems are harmful to a similar degree as Dr. Sadetzki has proved cellphone exposure to be. I'm an ignoramus as far as radio transmission engineering goes, and I'm not a health care professional or expert. My personal policy in the matter is based on the precautionary principle - that the burden of proof rightly rests on positively determining the harmlessness of wireless radio frequency emissions rather than proving harm.

Unfortunately, there seems to be relatively little research data available on the issue of possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic emissions from wireless computer communications specifically. Most studies in this area, like Dr. Sadetzki's, have focused mainly on cellphones.

Apple's AirPort networking system operates in the 2.4 GHz Frequency band at an output power of 15 dBm, while cellphones use the 800MHz to 1,990MHz range. The power output level of cellular phones can range from 0.006 of a watt to 0.6 of a watt for handheld units and three to six watts for portable units. 2.4 GHz is even farther into microwave territory than the cellphone frequencies. Microwave ovens operate at 2.45 gigahertz -- a frequency that causes water, glucose, and fat molecules to rub together and heat up.

Users will usually be exposed to emissions from wireless LANs for much longer periods of time than all but the most addicted cellphone users. Could the cumulative effect ultimately be as bad or worse? I'd like to know before I expose myself and my loved ones to wireless networking emissions. Microwaves are generally known to be unfriendly to living tissue, and it occurs that zapping yourself with them on an ongoing basis, even at low levels, is not the brightest plan.

Until there is a lot more research available on this issue from disinterested third parties, my own personal policy of "prudent avoidance" will include prudently avoiding wireless LANs, and until there is a really compelling reason to use them I'll continue to avoid using cellular and cordless phones. Happily, that has not been difficult so far, but I'm concerned that it may become more so as wireless technology becomes more intricately integrated into laptop computers like the MacBook Air for instance. For many others who will be exposed in work or educational settings, prudent avoidance will be virtually impossible. My kids are grown, but if they were still of school age, I would not want them sitting in classrooms full of wireless enables computers every day.

I expect that some people reading this article will be annoyed that I brought the topic up. There is widespread and understandable enthusiasm for the convenience of wireless technology. It could be that I and others are being hyper-cautious about this, and if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that exposure to low-level radio emissions is safe, I'm willing to listen. However, I want to hear it from sources other than those financed by industry or politically-sensitive government regulatory agencies, or from techno-enthusiast cheerleaders, and new information like the Israeli study is not quelling my apprehensions.

For further reading, here are more links:

Nature of the changes in the morphofunctional and cytochemical indices of blood leukocytes as affected by low-intensity microwaves
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4694563/

Cell phone radiation may change protein expression in human skin
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4700469/

New case study confirms increased cancer risk by portable radio radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4700623/

Japanese Interphone Results & Finnish Cell Phone Experiment
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4709936/

Setup and dosimetry for exposing anaesthetised pigs in vivo to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone fields
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4701189/

Can Cell Phones Give You Insomnia?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4710350/

Invisible fears: Neighbours worry new cellphone tower will affect their health
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4697883/

Panic in the beehive
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4699441/

Call for answers over masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4691419/

Phone masts ban extended in Muharraq
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4693247/

Council faces fight over phone masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4694052/

Downtown Toronto new cell phone towers present a public health threat to area residents and workers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4695430/

VOTE: Call to axe phone mast
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4698585/

Cell Phone Towers In Disguise
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4701153/

Questions over Wirral phone masts blunders
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4701351/

Disputed West Marin cell phone tower OK'd
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4701822/

When the CEOs and Sales Reps get sick?
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4702816/

Cell tower effects: Modern communication technology could be making you sick
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4706827/

Mobile phones and their risks: Open Meeting
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4706858/

Borough’s T-Mobile phone mast appeals
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4710006/

Why I Don't Have A Mobile
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4702650/

Health effects of occupational exposure to static magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging: a review
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4701204/

ASTHMA: link to electric meter and appliance exposures
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4708050/

Electricity in the Air
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4703017/

The death of the mobile phone tower?
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4707947/

Town bans "radioactive bodily trespass"
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4707162/