Suzanne Fournier, The Province
Published: Thursday, September 25, 2008Kerrisdale computer consultant Carl Katz doesn't want his two children bathed in a sea of radiation all day from wireless technology at their school.
Katz and the Parents for Safe Computing this week presented a petition signed by
80 parents troubled by the health effects of Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) on their children to the Conseil Scolaire Francophone, the public French school board that oversees 40 schools in B.C.
Carl Katz, whose two kids go to Rose-des-Vents school, is concerned about wireless technology because he says studies have shown that electromagnetic radiation of the level emitted by laptops with wireless is of concern to small children.
Gerry Kahrmann - The Province
"The industry-sponsored studies say Wi-Fi is no problem but the independent research in the U.S. and Britain has shown that electromagnetic radiation of the level emitted by laptops with a wireless connection should cause a great deal of concern, especially with children whose bodies are much more sensitive. I'm very concerned."
Katz has two children, Nicole and Zachary, in Grade 1 and Grade 6 at Rose-des-Vents school, which recently spent about $500,000 on new wireless connections for the kids' laptops.
Katz's group wants the French school board to switch from wireless technology back to cable, which they say carries less risk of exposing children to harmful levels of electromagnetic fields or EMFs.
"The school [officials]told us we'd be hobbling our children and setting them back a generation in technology and that's just ridiculous," says Katz. "I removed Wi-Fi from our house and my son is still very adept on a computer."
Paul de la Riva, spokesman for the board, said it adheres to Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which deals with "limits of human exposure" to electromagnetic fields.
"We rely on Health Canada to determine what is safe for kids, and as far as we know there is no health advisory on wireless technology, but we're not researchers and we're not the experts here," he said.
"If we did go back to a wired classroom it wouldn't allow each child from Grade 4 to 10 to have a computer at their desk. We will look into it but at this time we don't think scientists have agreed there are definite health effects."
Research from Sweden, Britain and the U.S. has found that EMFs of the level emitted by cellphones and wireless technology do impact the human body and may be linked to symptoms like headache, fatigue, tinnitus, memory deficits, irregular heart beat and some cancers.
In the U.K., government adviser Lawrie Challis has warned that children should not put laptop computers with Wi-Fi connections on their lap because of the health risks.
He wants to monitor the effects of wireless technology on children.
In the U.S., the Health Protection Agency asked recently for "more research into new technologies."
In B.C., there are no studies under way on the health effects on children of wireless technology.
"There is no evidence of adverse effects on kids at this time," said Ray Copes, director of environmental health for the B.C. Centres for Disease Control.
"It could reduce a child's exposure to move the laptop from their lap onto the desk, but to what extent should you make a precautionary statement when we have no firm evidence, especially compared to other proven risks?" he asked.
Vancouver School Board spokesman David Weir said: "The school district takes counsel from Health Canada and other federal authorities on this issue and they have not issued a health advisory on wireless networks."
© The Vancouver Province 2008
Environmental Management and Design Division
Cell phone radiation poses a serious biological and health risk:
Dr Neil Cherry
7/5/01
Neil.Cherry@ecan.govt.nz
The Issue:
Thousands of people are using cell phones for hours each day. They are exposing a very sensitive organ, their brain, to higher mean intensities than military personnel are exposed to when repairing radar. The military personnel show significant increases in cancer and a wide range of illnesses. Even at the very low mean levels that people experience living within 10 km of radio and TV towers, significant increases in cancer has been observed.
Analogue cell phones emit an analogue modulated RF/MW signal similar to an FM radio or TV signal. The digital cell phones radiate a pulse RF/MW signal similar to radar. Biological and epidemiological effects from EMR exposure across the spectrum show the same or similar effects.
Many people continue to drive while talking on their cell phones. Attention deficit and neurological effects on the user's brain make accidents much more likely.
Very young children and teenagers are becoming regular to heavy users of cell phones while their brains and bodies are in a much more vulnerable state than elderly people. With cancer and neurodegenerative disease latencies of decades, the possible adverse effects will take some time to become evident. By which time it will be too late for thousands of people.
There is growing concern about cell phone interference with cardiac pacemakers. If cell phone signals can interfere with an electronic pacemaker, then it is likely to also interfere with human hearts that are arrhythmically unstable.
Biophysical Principles:
Radiant energy is absorbed into human bodies according to three main processes. The first is the Aerial Effect where bodies and body parts receive and absorb the RF/MW signal with resonant absorption that is a function of the size of the body parts and the wavelength of the RF/MW signal. For an adult male about 1.8 m tall the optimal absorption frequency is close to 70 MHz, Figure 1. This has a wavelength of 4.3m. The body acts like a half-wave dipole interacting strongly with a half wavelength close to the body size. A monkey interacts with a wavelength of 1m and a half wavelength of 0.5m. This is similar to the absorbency of a human child.
The Aerial effect also relates to body parts such as arms and heads. A typical adult head has a width of 15 cm. This is a half wavelength for a 1 GHz microwave signal, close to that used by most cell phones.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 1: Average SAR for 3 species exposed to 10 W/m2 with E vector parallel to the long axis of the body, from Durney et al. (1978).
Cellphone-type radiation is in the 0.9 to 1.8 GHz range, i.e. 0.9 x 109 to 1.8 x 109 Hz. Hence according to Figure 1 neither children nor adults are close to the optimum absorption rate but babies and infants bodies, whose dimensions lie between "monkey" and "mouse", are close to the optimal absorption for cell phone-type radiation.
A person with a height h (m), acting as an aerial in an RF electric field E (V/m) at a carrier frequency f (MHz), has a current induced in them which flows to earth through their feet, given by, Gandhi et al. (1985):
Ih = 0.108 h2 E f (mA)
This induced current flows mainly through high water content organs. In flowing to ground the current passes through the ankles. These consist mainly of low conductivity bones and tendons and have an effective cross-sectional area of 9.5 cm2 for an adult, despite the actual physical area is of the order of 40 cm2. The formula for Ih also allows for the effective absorption area of the person, which is somewhat greater than their actual cross-sectional area, because of the attraction of the surrounding field to an earthed conductor. These aerial considerations are more pertinent to whole-body exposures to cell sites.
Cell phone aerials form digital phones typically occupy the length of the body of the phone and extend a few centimeters out of the top of the phone body. Cellphone radiation for the phone's aerial is quite close to the user's head and can be intense enough to cause a warming sensation.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 2: The dielectric constant and conductivity of typical biological tissue as a function of frequency, Schwan (1985).
The second mechanism involves the coupling of the signal to the tissue as the signal penetrates the tissue and interacts with the cells and layers of tissue. This process is related to the dielectric constant and conductivity of the tissue types, which vary significantly with the carrier frequency, Figure 2.
The third biophysical absorption process involves resonant absorption by biological systems in the brain and cells. Resonant absorption occurs when a system with a natural frequency is stimulated by an imposed signal of a similar frequency or harmonic frequency. Radio and TV receivers use both the aerial principle and the resonant absorption principle. The aerial resonantly absorbs the carrier frequency and carries it as an induced current to the receiver. Here a tuned circuit oscillating at the same frequency resonantly absorbs the carrier wave and uses decoding circuitry to extract the encoded message contained in the amplitude, frequency or digital modulation imprinted on the carrier wave.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 3: Comparison of the frequency spectra of the human EEG from 260 young males showing the 5%, 50% and 95%ile bands, adapted from Gibbs and Gibbs (1951), and Schumann Resonance peaks, from Polk (1982).
Figures 4 and 5 confirm the relationship shown in Figure 3, using independently derived spectra of the daytime human EEG, Figure 4 and the Schumann Resonance spectrum, Figure 5. The figures have been aligned to have a common horizontal frequency scale.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 4: A typical EEG spectrum, with the Schumann Resonance peaks superimposed.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 5: Daytime Schumann Resonance Spectrum, Polk (1982).
Figures 3-5 show that the frequency range of the primary peaks of the Schumann Resonances coincide with the frequency range of the human EEG. Upper Schumann peaks also associated with small peaks in the EEG. This shows a resonant interaction and supports the probability of an actual use by the brain or the Schumann Resonance signal. Figure 6 shows that this occurs in a study showing a significant dose-response correlation between the intensity of the 8-10 Hz Schumann Peak and human reaction times.
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 6: Human reaction times as a function of Schumann Resonance 8-10 Hz Relative Intensity, for 49,500 subjects tested during 18 days in September 1953, at the German Traffic exhibition in
รถnig (1974b). Trend: t = 10.414, 2-tailed p<0.001.>
Cellphone radiation is shown to interact with human EEG patterns and to alter them and to change reaction times. The GSM signal has a pulse frequency of 217 Hz and a modulation at 8.34 Hz. This is in the Schumann Resonance and EEG spectral primary frequency range.
Effects shown for electromagnetic radiation, especially radio and radar signals, but also electrical occupations:
Such signals have been shown to:
Neurological Activity:
· · Alter brain activity, including EEG and reaction times, memory loss, headaches, fatigue and concentration problems, dizziness (the Microwave Syndrome), Gordon (1966), Deroche (1971), Moscovici et al. (1974), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Shandala et al. (1979), Forman et al. (1982), Frey (1998).
· · Impair sleep and learning, Altpeter et al. (1995), Kolodynski and Kolodynska (1996)
· · Increase permeability of the blood brain barrier (a mechanism for headache), Frey et al. (1975), Alberts (1977, 1978) and Oscar and Hawkins (1977).
· · Alter GABA, Kolomytkin et al. (1994).
· · Increase neurodegenerative disease including Alzheimer's Disease, Sobel et al. (1995, 1996), Savitz et al. (1998a,b)
· · Highly significant Increased permeability of the blood brain barrier for 915 MHz radiation at SAR =0.016-0.1 (p=0.015) and SAR = 0.1-0.4 (p=0.002); Salford et al. (1994).
· · Increase the Suicide Risk, Baris and Armstrong (1990), Perry et al. (1991), Van Wijngaarden et al. (2000).
Cardiological Activity:
· · Alter blood pressure and heart rhythm (heart rate variability) Bortkiewicz et al. (1995, 1996, 1997) and Szmigielski at al (1998).
· · Increases Heart Disease and heart attack mortality, Forman et al. (1986), Hamburger, Logue and Silverman (1983), Savitz et al. (1999)
Immune System Activity:
· · Impairs the immune system Quan et al. (1992), Dmoch and Moszczynski (1998), Bruvere et al. (1998)
Reproductive Activity:
· · Reduces sperm counts in radar exposed military personnel, Weyandt et al. (1996)
· · Increases miscarriage and congenital abnormalities, Kallen et al. (1982), Larsen et al. (1991), Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993).
· · Doubles the incidence of twins in the families of radar exposed personnel, Flaherty (1994).
· · Significantly alters the leaf structure of plants exposed to a radar, Magone (1996).
· · Significantly reduces the radial growth of pine trees, Balodis et al. (1996).
· · Reduced fertility of mice exposed to an RF field (27.12 MHz), Brown-Woodman et al. (1989).
· · Increased fetal/embryo lethality in mice exposed to 2.45 GHz microwaves, Nawrot, McRee and Galvin (1985).
· · Radio exposures completely cause complete infertility in mice over 3 to 5 generations at mean exposure levels of 1.05 and 0.17m W/cm2, respectively, Magras and Xenos (1997).
Genotoxic Activity:
· · Reduce melatonin and alter calcium ions, Abelin (1999), Burch et al. (1997, 1999) Bawin and Adey (1976), Blackman et al. (1988, 1989, 1990).
· · Enhances heat shock proteins at extremely low exposure levels in a highly reproducible manner showing that they are not stimulated by heat but in reaction to a 'toxic' protein reaction, Daniells et al. (1998), and down to 0.001W/kg (0.34m W/cm2) using 750MHz microwaves, de Pomerai (2000).
· · Damages chromosomes. Heller and Teixeira-Pinto (1959), Tonascia and Tonascia (1966), Yao (1982), Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1999), Timchenko and Ianchevskaia (1995), Balode (1996), Haider et al. (1994) and Vijayalaxmi et al. (1997) have reported significant chromosome aberrations from RF/MW exposures. In the Mar/Apr 1999 edition of Microwave News it is reported that Drs Tice, Hook and McRee
· · Alters DNA, Ali and Behari (1994).
· · Breaks DNA strands, Lai and Singh (1995, 1996, 1997).
· · Alters gene transcription activity, Phillips et al. (1992, 1993).
· · Neoplastically transform cells, Balcer-Kubiczek and Harrison (1991).
· · Enhances cell death in a dose response manner for signal intensity and exposure time, Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1991).
· · Enhances cell proliferation in a dose-response manner for exposure time, Mattei et al. (1999).
· · Enhances Ornithine Decarboxylase (ODC) activity, a measure of cell proliferation rate, Byus et al. (1988), Litovitz et al. (1997).
· · Enhances free radicals, Phelan et al. (1992).
· · Increased cancer in rats and mice, Prausnitz and Susskind (1962), Szmigielski et al. (1988) and Chou et al. (1992)
Cancer Epidemiology:
· · Increase the incidence of many types of cancer, including leukaemia, brain tumor, testicular cancer, genitourinary and breast cancer, Robinette et al. (1980), Milham (1985, 1988), Szmigielski (1996), Hocking et al. (1996), Dolk et al. (1997 a, b), Beall et al. (1996), Grayson (1996), Thomas et al. (1987), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Zaret (1989), Davis and Mostofl (1993), Hayes et al. (1990), Tynes et al. (1996), Cantor et al. (1995), and many others.
These biological and health effects are consistent with the biological understanding that brains, hearts and cells are sensitive to electromagnetic signals because they use electromagnetic signals for their regulation, control and natural processes, including those processes monitored by the EEG and ECG. There is overwhelming evidence that EMR is genotoxic, alters cellular ions, neurotransmitters and neurohormones, and interferes with brain and heart signals, and increases cancer.
Cell Phone Radiation Research:
For years the cell phone companies and government authorities have assured us that cell phone are perfectly safe. For example, they claim that the particular set of radiation parameter associated with cell phones are not the same as any other radio signal and therefore earlier research does not apply. They also mount biased review teams who falsely dismiss any results that indicate adverse biological and health effects and the flawed pre-assumption that the only possible effect is tissue heating. There is a very large body of scientific research that challenges this view. Now we have published research, primarily funded by governments and industry that shows that cell phone radiation causes the following effects:
Neurological Activity:
· · Alters brain activity including EEG, Von Klitzing (1995), Mann and Roschkle (1996), Krause et al. (2000).
· · Disturbs sleep, Mann and Roschkle (1996), Bordely et al. (1999).
· · Alters sleep EEG after awake exposure, Huber et al. (2000).
· · Alters human reaction times, Preece et al. (1999), Induced potentials, Eulitz et al. (1998), slow brain potentials, Freude et al. (1998), Response and speed of switching attention (need for car driving) significantly worse, Hladky et al. (1999). Altered reaction times and working memory function (positive), Koivisto et al. (2000), Krause et al. (2000).
· · Brain cortex interaction as shown by significantly altered human EEG by cellphone radiation, during a 15 minute exposure, Lebedeva et al. (2000).
· · Weakens the blood brain barrier (p<0.0001):>
· · A Fifteen minute exposure, increased auditory brainstem response and hearing deficiency in 2 kHz to 10 kHz range, Kellenyi et al. (1999).
· · While driving, with 50 minutes per month with a cell phone, a highly significant 5.6-fold increase in accident risk, Violanti et al. (1996); a 2-fold increase in fatal accidents with cell phone in car, Violanti et al. (1998); impairs cognitive load and detection thresholds, Lamble et al. (1999). In a large Canadian study Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) the risk of collision when using a cellphone was 4 time higher, RR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.0-6.5. Calls close to the time of collision has RR =4.8 for 5 minutes and RR = 5.9, p<0.001,>
· · Significant changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the CNS and cardiovascular system, Khdnisskii, Moshkarev and Fomenko (1999).
· · Causes memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and headache, in a dose response manner, (Mild et al. (1998)). Headache, discomfort, nausea, Hocking (1998).
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 7: Prevalence of symptoms for Norwegian mobile phone users, mainly analogue, with various categories of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998).
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 8: Prevalence of symptoms for Swedish mobile phone users, mainly digital, with various categories of length of calling time per day, Mild et al. (1998).
These are the same symptoms that have frequently been reported as "Microwave Sickness Syndrome" or "Radiofrequency Sickness Syndrome", Baranski and Czerski (1976) and
Johnson-Liakouris (1998).
Cardiac Activity:
· · Cardiac pacemaker interference: skipped three beats, Barbaro et al. (1996); showed interference, Hofgartner et al. (1996); significant interference, p<0.05 p="0.0003,">(1996); p<0.0001,>(1997); reversible interference, Schlegal et al. (1998); significantly induced electronic noise, Occhetta et al. (1999); various disturbances observed and warnings recommended, Trigano et al. (1999)
· · Significantly increases blood pressure, Braune et al. (1998).
Hormone Activity:
· · Reduces the pituitary production of Thyrotropin (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, TSH):
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Figure 9: A significant reduction in Thyrotropin (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) during cell phone use, de Seze et al. (1998).
· · Reduces melatonin significantly, Burch et al. (1997, 1998). A GSM cellphone reduces melatonin, but not significantly in a very small sample (N=18) of subjects, de Seze et al. (1999).
· · A reported but yet to be published Australian Study, EMRAA News, June 2000, used a Clot Retention Test on blood samples to detect hormonal changes. A group of 30 volunteers used a Nokia 6150 cellphone for 10 minutes on each of two consecutive days. The CRT test showed significant changes in the thyroid, pancreas, ovaries, testes and hormonal balance.
Reproductive Activity:
· · Decreases in sperm counts and smaller tube development in rat testes, Dasdag et al. (1999).
· · Increases embryonic mortality of chickens, Youbicier-Simo, Lebecq and Bastide (1998).
Genotoxic Activity:
· · Breaks DNA strands, Verschaeve at al. (1994), Maes et al. (1997), which is still extremely significant p<0.0001,>m W/cm2), Phillips et al. (1998).
· · Produces an up to three-fold increase in chromosome aberrations in a dose response manner from all cell phones tested, Tice, Hook and McRee, reported in Microwave News, March/April 1999. The findings were the same when the experiment was repeated and Dr Tice is quoted as stating: "There's no way you're going to get positive results twice over four different technologies as a chance result."
· · Doubles c-fos gene activity (a proto oncogene) for analogue phones and increases it by 41 % for digital phones, Goswami et al. (1999), altered c-jun gene, Ivaschuk et al. (1997), Increased hsp70 messenger RNA, Fritz et al. (1997).
· · Increases Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNK), Fesenko et al. (1999).
· · Increases ODC activity, Penafiel et al. (1997).
· · DNA synthesis and cell proliferation increased after 4 days of 20 min for 3 times/day exposure. Calcium ions were significantly altered, French, Donnellan and McKenzie (1997). Decreased cell proliferation, Kwee and Raskmark (1997), Velizarov, Raskmark and Kwee (1999)
· · Doubles the cancer in mice, Repacholi et al. (1997).
· · Increases the mortality of mobile phone users compared with portable phone users, RR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.07-1.79, p=0.013, Rothman et al. (1996).
· · Increases human brain tumor rate by 2.5 times (Hardell et al. (1999)). Associated with an angiosarcoma (case study), Hardell (1999)
· · Hardell et al. (2000), for analogue phones OR = 2.62, 95%CI: 1.02-6.71, with higher tumour rates at points of highest exposure.
· · Significantly increases the incidence of eye cancer (Uveal Melanoma), by between OR = 4.2, 95%CI: 1.2-14.5, and OR = 10.1, 95%CI: 1.1-484.4, Stang et al. (2001).
· · United States, Motorola Study Morgan et al. (2000)
High Exposure RR = 1.07 (0.32-2.66) n = 3
Moderate Exposure RR = 1.18 (0.36-2.92) n = 3
High/Mod vs Low RR = 1.13 (0.49-2.31) n = 6
This project underestimated cancer rates by using a high cancer reference group.
· · Carlo and Schram (2001) report that in the industry funded WTR (Wireless Technology Research) programme Dr Joseph Roti Roti confirmed the Tice, Hook and McRee research showing that cellphone radiation significantly damaged DNA through observed micronuclei formation.
· · Muscat et al. (2000) report elevated brain cancer in cellphone users in the United States, with cerebral tumors occurring more frequently on the side of the head where the mobile phone had been used, (26 vs 15 cases, p=0.06) and for a rare brain cancer, neuroepitheliomatous, OR = 2.1, 95%CI: 0.9-4.7. Mean use of cell phones was 2.5 years for cases and 2.2 years for controls, showing that a small increase in cellphone use (0.3 years) produces a large increase in brain cancer risk.
· · Cell phone users in Denmark Johansen et al. (2001)
Duration of digital subscription <1>³ 3 yrs
Relative to reference group SIR 0.7 0.9 1.2
Relative to <1>
Other cancers are set out in "Table 2" below. Over 67 % of phone users had used their phones for 2 years or less. The reference group had a higher than average cancer rate than the age range of cell phone users, underestimating the cancer rates. This is shown by Standard Incidence Ratios (SIR) of some groups being as little as 0.6. For example SIR for users for <1>
PICTURE MISSING see:
(http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml)
Table two shows that even with little cellphone use, and even with the use of a high cancer reference group, there are several elevated cancers approaching significance: Testicular cancer SIR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.97-1.30, Cervical cancer, SIR = 1.34, 95%CI: 0.95-1.85, Female Pharynx cancer, SIR 2.43, 95%CI: 0.65-6.22, Esophagus cancer, SIR = 1.53, 95%CI: 0.31-4.46 and female breast cancer, SIR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.91-1.26.
Conclusions:
To date over 50 studies have shown adverse biological or human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation. These research results to date clearly show that cell phones and cell phone radiation are a strong risk factor for all of the adverse health effects identified for EMR because they share the same biological mechanisms. The greatest risk is to cell phone users because of the high exposure to their heads and the great sensitivity of brain tissue and brain processes. DNA damage accelerates cell death in the brain, advancing neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer. Brain tumour is already an identified risk factor. Cell phones are carried on people's belts and in breast pockets. Hence liver cancer, breast cancer and testicular cancer became probable risk factors.
Altered attention and cognition, as well as the diversion of talking on a phone while driving is a significant risk factor for accidents and fatal accidents.
Some cardiac pacemakers are susceptible to active cell phone signals, recommending keeping cell phones away from hearts and pacemakers.
Because the biological mechanisms are shown and EMR has been observed to significantly increase the following effects, there is extremely strong evidence to conclude that cell phones are a risk factor for breast, liver, testicular and brain cancer. It is also probable that we will observe a very wide range of other effects including cardiac, neurological and reproductive illness and death. Since cell phone radiation cause many cell damages including DNA and chromosome damage, all of these effects will also be caused by cell sites.
Dose-response studies of neurological, cardiac, reproductive and cancer effects in human populations all point to a near zero exposure level of no effect, Cherry (2000). Since cellphone radiation mimics RF/MW radiation effects which mimics ELF biological and health, the adverse effects occur across the spectrum and includes cellphone radiation, with a safe exposure level of zero.
Hence a risk reduction and public health protection based on keeping exposure below a level that doubles the risk, identifies 0.1 m W/cm2 as the maximum acceptable exposure. This should allow a mean life-time exposure to be less than 0.01m W/cm2 which is necessary to reduce the risk of neurological effects. The lower level is necessary because of the exquisite sensitivity of the brain.
The complete document with pictures and References can be found at:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/neilcherrycellphonerisks07may01.shtml
