COMMENT Ever wonder if your mobile phone is really killing your brain cells? Or why you can't use it in hospitals and on airplanes? Peter Cochrane takes on the top myths about mobile technology.
It is hard to recall a technology that has been so universally enjoyed and at the same time so vilified as the mobile phone. Perhaps as proof of its popularity, I have noticed what superb urban legends have risen up around the device and mobile technology in general.
The first is the notion that mobiles are cooking your brain with radio waves.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we have groups and individual zealots dedicated to proving mobile phones are dangerous. But most users don't seem to be unduly worried. For a change, common sense seems to have overcome irrationality and hysteria and the world's population employs mobile technology as they might use a pencil.
We have been using mobile devices for over 50 years - since World War II - with power levels ranging between 50MW and 50W. And there have been no positive or confirmed detrimental effects on the brain so far. However, the number of lives saved by instant communication on the move is in the many thousands. So the equation of benefit to potential risk seems to be approaching infinity.
Let me assure you that this is not true of all technologies that we have accepted and use everyday without a second thought. Power tools, automobiles, microwave ovens, electric fires and toasters are but a few of the most common risks we encounter.
The second urban legend: recently I spent quite a bit of time in hospitals and medical facilities with signs asking people not to use their mobile phones for fear of interfering with medical equipment. Considering that the equipment was designed to be used in a public place, I thought the risk of interference was extremely unlikely but like everyone else I complied. And who wouldn't?
It was with some amusement and curiosity that I soon observed that all the wards and many of the offices I visited were equipped with cordless phones. These devices emit a steady 5W no matter how far they wander from their base. In contrast mobile phones emit at most 0.5W. Next I observed that many of the staff - janitors, administrators, nurses and doctors - used their mobile phones throughout the hospital.
What magic technology prevents the staff cordless and mobile phones from interfering with medical equipment? None! They all obey the same laws of physics and cordless devices are actually far more of a threat than my mobile. So what's going on here? I suspect that most hospitals have done deals with phone companies to get a slice of the lucrative patient-relative communications traffic. Telephones on the wards and in the rooms charge 10 times the normal per-minute cost of a standard landline call.
Another mobile-free zone I regularly visit is the airliner, the site of the third urban legend I will take on. Without exception, mobile phones must be turned off during airplane flights. This sounds sensible but I cannot find a single incident of confirmed interference and problems - just a lot of scare stories and rumour. Even more interesting, I am writing this after taking a flight on which a new Wi-Fi service was being tested. The 2.4GHz 0.1W radiation for the Wi-Fi equipment is sure to be equally or even more risky for aircraft systems than a 0.9GHz 0.5W signal from a mobile.
A quick calculation reveals that a modern airliner travelling at cruise altitude and anywhere under 300km per hour would be seen by a mobile phone station as the plane crosses contiguous cells. Now Doppler shift will cause a GSM mobile phone to lose signal lock at around 170km per hour. So any user of a mobile phone - air to ground - would experience a lot of dropped calls for a significant percentage of cell coverage.
But it gets worse. The terrestrial mobile networks were never designed to cope with the rapid cell-to-cell handovers presented by passenger airlines, let alone the concentration of mobile phone users they usually transport.
So I wonder if there has been a deal between mobile providers and airlines that resulted in the in-flight telephones that charge $2.50 per minute. Though I must say, in all my years of flying I have only witnessed two people use seat back phones on an aircraft.
How many brains have been fried, patients killed and airplanes crashed by mobile phones? I can't find any numbers or solid evidence to answer these questions. I suspect the answers are zip.
One thing I can tell you: if you are concerned about the use of mobiles on aircraft, just consider the engine management and safety systems in your car the next time you phone home on the freeway. They are as equally susceptible to inference as those on an airplane.
Drafted at the Berlin Marriott Hotel, rewritten on Kiawah Island NC and despatched to silicon.com via the Washington Hilton business centre LAN.
Comments
There are 19 comments. Join the discussion
1. Lawrence John
Peter, I usually agree with you but have a suggestion in this case - you hear your normal FM radio get interfearence when your mobile is switched on or about to receive a call, maybe a 747 pilot will get radio interference 450 times if he has 450 passengers all switching on or receiving calls ??
2. Vempati Venu
This is in response to one of the reader's comment regarding FM Vs Mobile. As far as I know the disturbances we hear are nothing to do with the signal interference but with the big magnet present in any speaker. This could also be observed with any speaker not connected to any FM receiver but in very short ranges (read as distance). But there is always one danger in using mobiles, usually people using mobiles "tend" to isolate from their surroundings, which is the main cause of accidents or potential dangers, may be that's why they were forbidden to use their mobiles in high alerted environments like hospitals/aircrafts and of course driving.
3. anonymous
And of course, the EMI coming from the spark plugs is far worse for delicate electronics than anything the humble mobile could produce. Ban cars from driving past hospitals!
4. anonymous
I have a copy of a Civil Aviation Authority research paper which says differently. (Although I'm cynical enough to admit that stuff trawled off the internet is often of questionable authenticity.)
It is entitled "CAA Paper 2003/3; Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment".
I obtained it from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF some time ago. It's an interesting read.
Perhaps you'd like to comment on its content and/or authenticity, Mr Cochrane?
5. Marc Richardson
Interesting BBC article regarding mobile use on planes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3926029.stm
One comment from a pilot says he has heard people's conversations in his headset.
6. Patrick King
Peter,
You are wrong on your assumptions re mobile phones.
The CAA conducted research with Vodafone in 2003 and discovered that mobiles caused "significant" interference with navigation, communications and instrumentation on board aircraft. Being a private pilot, I noticed that using a mobile in the cockpit caused strange things to happen with the VOR, DME and HF radios on my aircraft.
Countless research projects (many with published papers) have proven that prolonged exposure to MW radiation from mobiles will cause long-term tissue cell damage to humans.
Just because some hospital staff are stupid enough not to obey basic rules designed to protect patients from complex equipment failure, does not mean that the rest of us should copy them.
Mobiles are great - but should be used with consideration for others and the environment the user is located in. Aircraft, Petrol Stations and ICU's in hospitals are not safe places to make a mobile call from.
7. Robert Lewis
My phone interferes with any TV, radio or even some hifi-amp-speaker systems etc on or on standby in the same room, so I would be surprised if it did not interfere with various other electronic devices eg in a hospital.
I don't notice it except when the volume is low, but my wife's hearing is better and she gets it every time.
She unfailingly tells me my mobile is about to ring, or there is a text message on its way before the phone rings or beeps. Sometimes there are false alarms when the phone is just confirming to base that it is switched on and receiving a signal.
Once communication is established the interference stops, so I think it is the mobile's return signal that it is ready to receive that is picked up directly by the TV etc.
It isn't just this phone - the previous ones did so as well. Three Orange Nokia's dating back to mid 1990s, and two other makes - can't remember which.
8. Mark Cooper
An interesting take on this was raised recently in the TV programme "Brainiac - Science Abuse" (which takes a light-hearted view of scientific and technological 'myths').
In an attempt to prove or disprove the assertion that mobile phones are a source of potential hazard when used in garage forecourts, they placed up to 15 mobile phones inside a caravan which had been doused with petrol inside and which contained several open containers of petrol. They rang all the mobiles at once and...
Nothing happened. No BOOM. Not even a flicker.
They then touched a wire to a guy who had recently jumped up and down wearing a nylon overall (the other end of the wire being inside the same caravan) - BOOM!
The conclusion drawn by the programmes presenter was that wearing nylon in a garage forecourt is far more hazardous than using a mobile phone, yet we don't see any signs warning us to refrain from wearing nylon while filling our cars!
I do believe (and I'm sure that this is what Mr. Cochrane is alluding to) that many of the rules that surround our use of mobile devices are grossly hyped and un-neccessary, however, the nature of research being published in this area is at best inconclusive and at worst misleading. I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that all these rules are made up because of some sort of conspiracy between the hospitals/airlines etc. and the service providers. I don't think I'm cynical enough to believe that - yet.
Until proper (and independantly funded) research into the effects of mobile devices on the environment is published then we can only impose rules to prevent worse-case scenarios from happening.
9. Jason Moss
Myth Busting?? You have not "busted" one single myth in your pro-mobile rant. Judging by your obvious disgust with the fact we do not have any evidence of interference in planes or hospitals are you suggesting we all give it a go so as to substantiate your theory - or not - as the case may be? (if it was the latter I would feel pretty stupid for trying 30,000 feet up in the air) Your theory is no more just theory than the theory that suggests mobile connectivity does cause interference to electronic equipment and damage to the brain.
I have been using a mobile phone for about 10 years and until recently would have gone along with any suggestion that anti-mobile groups were being anti for the sake of being anti-something-popular. However, I set up in business just over 2 years ago and as the business has grown so has the use of my mobile. About 6 Months ago I began to suffer Tinnitus in my left ear (my phone ear) in 24-48hr bouts 2 or 3 times a week. I tried to hide the fact that it may be excessive use of a mobile handset from my conscious mind as my business now relies on the damned thing. It was not until I went on holiday for a week and a half back in July that after the first week I realised I had not suffered any form of Tinnitus whatsoever since leaving my phone at home.
I now avoid using the handset against my ear whenever possible and have noticed that if I ever get stuck using the handset for a call that lasts more than 10 to 15 minutes the Tinnitus is back within hours, without fail. Otherwise I am Tinnitus free! I am now converted and all for any campaign to push companies into manufacturing safer handsets, and in the meantime will continue to turn my phone off whilst in a hospital, a plane or anywhere else where interference may or may not, depending on which THEORY you choose to believe, cause fairly instant death! (Except maybe in a plane where in the feasible event of my handset causing interference with certain telemetry I would probably have 5 minutes or so to finish the call before plane was in an un-recoverable dive)
I also didn't used to believe that Global Warming was going to happen either, after all, where was the evidence a couple of decades ago?
10. Jim Price
Peter, I usually nod in agreement with your perceptive, though often slightly cynical, thoughts. On this occasion, I have to endorse them wholeheartedly, your cynicism is, I believe very well founded. Have you also noticed the number of hospitals whose high, flat roofs serve as aerial farms? Not just for mobile base stations but all kinds of other service, some quite high power.
Just a small point though - I don't believe we yet have 50 Megawatt portable devices; the printer's devil changed the case of your 'm'!
11. anonymous
If you have ever held a mobile phone near a loudspeaker its clear from personal experience that the signal causes significant cross-talk in other electronics at a distance of 1-2m so it seems intuitive that 300 -400 mobile phones concentrated in an airplane, all operating on maximum power to receive a distant signal, could conceivably interfere with sensitive on-board electronics. The excellent record of aviation safety is based upon a conservative approach to technology - I think its as well for them to adopt a more rather than less cautious approach.
Quite apart from electronic polution, what about noise polution. As a frequent traveller, nothing irritates me more than incredible insensitivity of fellow passengers who seem to be unable to resist constantly shouting into their mobile phones not to mention their inane ring tones, usually set on maximum volume. Even though I use my phone more than most, I am delighted that phones are banned in flight - it means I can have a restful journey. I can only imagine the same applies tenfold to the sick or their relatives in hospital.
The solution surely is to have certain areas which are cleared for mobile use and others which are not.
12. Simon Allen
The next 'myth-ery' to be looked at is whether using a mobile phone distracts a vehicle driver more than the other things that can be seen every day, whilst the vehicle is moving:
1) Turning round to keep the children from fighting.
2) Shaving with portable shaver.
3) Combing hair.
4) Applying make up.
5) Searching for, locating and lighting a cigarette.
6) Not finding a cigarette and the nervous and uncomfortable mental state thus engendered.
7) Eating food, drinking tea/coffee/etc.
8) Reading the map.
9) Staring at males/females out of the side window!
10) Searching for, locating and loading a CD/Cassette/radio channel.
11) Not having the correct glasses with you, or not having your eyes checked for more than five years.
12) Arguing with your passengers.
13) Driving under the influence of drugs (legal/illegal) and/or alcohol.
14) Speeding to reach the next appointment, rather than using your mobile phone to say that you have been delayed!
Feel free to add to the list!
Whilst some of these may be more dangerous than using a mobile, ONLY the mobile can have it's use identified by computer records and used in court.
Also, the mobile is new and we have been used to doing all the others for as long as we have been driving. Naturally, the mobile must be the most dangerous ...
13. Alex Steel
I too used to be cynical - that is until my mobile phone "killed" the onboard computer in my Rover 75.
I took it to the dealer, and they told me this is a regular problem if the phone is left too near the instrument binnacle and a call or text is received. It has happened again since, and both times coincided with a call being received.
The computer in the car is not destroyed, but requires resetting (which is just a case of disconnecting the battery - i.e. rebooting it) - but I doubt it would be that simple in a 747 or an intensive care ward!
Like I said, I was cynical too that a mobile could have this sort of effect on electronic equipment - until I've seen it with my own eyes - or would you suggest it is just a coincidence?
14. anonymous
Peter Cochrane's Uncommon Nonsense!! Like many readers, I almost always enjoy, and usually agree with, Peter Cochrane's writings. But I have seldom seen an article, written with such apparent authority, that has been so full of as many incorrect, ill-informed and misleading statements. Nearly all his comments about frequencies, power outputs, cordless vs mobile (does he actually know the difference between analogue cordless, DECT, PMR, mobile phones and vehicle-mounted AM emergence service radios?), interference characteristics, hospital outgoing telephone charges, GSM and PCN cell "hand-overs", and Wi-Fi vs GSM/PCN interference are, almost without exception, either largely or completely incorrect. Here is not the place to refer to the numerous definitive papers that contradict his assertions (another commentator accurately described them as a "rant"), but, perhaps if he spent more time researching his unfounded claims, and less time on aeroplanes or with a mobile pressed against his ear, his brain would have some rather more clear, coherent and supportable thoughts!
15. Daniel Doo
For once I don't agree with Peter on this one. Hospital and Avionics equipment were not "exhaustively tested" for mobile interference, and with new bands and standards emerging all the time, it would be better to avoid possible cause to problems which involved life and death situations and would be too late to "be proven" before banning.
16. anonymous
Mobile phones and tinnitus
interesting, i am having a similar experience. i too have my own business and am on my mobile for 2 or 3 hours a day and now have tinnitus. but when i stop using my mobile, especially for a few days, my tinnitus really clears up. what the hell is happening ? is there a ink between mobile phone use and tinnitus ? i am going to buy an ear peice to see if that reduces my tinnitus. interstingly none of the tinnitus help boards write anything about mobile phones
17. Paul Clarke
If you have a Sky satellite box try this one... whilst the box is recieving a signal. Make a call with your mobile and point the phone's aerial at the decoder card (a few cms away). On mine the program breaks up, until the signal on the satellite broadcast is lost.
I have two mobiles, one on Vodafone (900GSM) and one on Orange (1800GSM). Only the Orange mobile caused this to happen. The Orange SIM in my unlocked Vodafone mobile also caused the satellite interference. So seems to be caused by the higher frequencies.
I also get tinnitus with the Orange phone, but not with the Vodafone. Is there something in this?
18. anonymous
I used to use a mobile phone twice a week, for up to two hours at a time. After one time when I was on it whilst it was charging up, I noticed a severe, vribratory buzzing in the ear where my mobile phone had been held. This later evolved into a multitude of noises, including high-pitched ringing. I was only 21 at the time. Two years later, this condition continues to be psychologically and emotionally debilitating. It has affected my entire life and I am a fraction of the happy individual that I once was. Silence has been stolen from me. For all those doubting a causal link between mobiles and tinnitus, I do not offer you an irrefutable link (how can I? I am not a scientist or a doctor) but I can, and do, offer you irrefutable facts. Tinnitus started immediately after a particularly long phone call on a mobile. Read this and make the decisions that you think appropriate.
19. John Thorp
Whilst I can agree with Peter's comments on mobile phone mythbusting my personal experience leads me to be dubious.
I used to own a Nokia mobile phone that when it received an incoming call not only did it play tones on the hifi that the phone was resting on but it also powered off the hifi. It is for reasons such as this that I am dubious about claims from various government bodies and Quangos - I think Mad Cow disease and foot and mouth help to reinforce these thought processes.