By Peter Cochrane, 4 March 2008 17:32
COMMENT
Written in the bar of a London hotel and dispatched via a free wi-fi service from Canary Wharf in the capital's docklands.
Scare stories about mobile phones cooking our brains come and go as regularly as the seasons. Irrational and unexplained results are periodically hailed by the media as the death knell for the mobile industry.
Schools, colleges and universities advise against - or even ban - the use of wi-fi, and services are closed down as a potential health risk.
Exclusive column: The Naked CIO
See what this CIO really thinksÂ…
The Naked CIO: Shadow of the job axe
The Naked CIO: Identity crisis
The Naked CIO: Innovation - same old story
There are many protest groups actively campaigning against wireless in any form because of some unknown and unquantified potential risk to health. These groups include those preventing base station towers being erected close to their schools or in the middle of their communities.
Unfortunately their lack of understanding actually has an inverse reality impact. If they understood the basic physics involved they would be asking for more towers and not fewer. Living really close to a mobile phone base station tower is the safest place to be.
Here is what is happening. The mobile phone pressed close to your ear adjusts its transmit power according to the distance from the base station.
That means the further from the tower the lower the power received by a mobile and the higher the power transmitted back as a result.
So if you get really close to a base station your mobile sees lots of signal and therefore transmits back a minimal amount in turn. Interesting, isn't it? That is the inverse perception of the protestors.
The detailed physics is also interesting. Near-field emissions - those that are mainly magnetic field coupling - fall away at a rate of 1/d^6 while the far-field radiation - that is, electro-magnetic waves - die at the slower rate of 1/d^2 where d is the distance from a transmitter.
These inverse distance laws lead to the situation whereby the power entering the human head from a tower is generally less than 1,000 times smaller than that produced by a mobile.
Hence, to reduce the exposure to radiation to a minimum it is always better to be really close to the base station to ensure the mobile is emitting a minimum energy.
And what of wi-fi and WiMax? Various emission limits and active control systems, plus deployment methods generally render these systems less power aggressive than mobile networks. And of course the same inverse distance/power laws apply.
And now for the really good news. The radiation from mobile devices, base stations, wi-fi and WiMax equipment is non-ionising. That is, it can only jiggle cells and warm them up. To do any real lasting damage, very high powers are required - microwave oven-style.
Radio emissions are not at all like ionising x-rays that can blow cells apart. So, as adequately demonstrated by our overall survival and ability to live with electromagnetic radiation for almost 100 years, there isn't a real problem with wireless radiation anyway.
How can we be really sure there isn't an unknown risk? How about all the troops in WWII exposed to radar emissions as they sat on the deck of troop ships, aircrews on bombers and night-time interceptors, or the thousands exposed to the headlong radiation from military and civil walkie-talkies during the same period and up to the introduction of mobile phones some 25 years ago?
All these pieces of equipment emitted far greater powers than today's mobiles and used frequencies that spanned, high to low, all our current mobile and wi-fi bands.
Will any of this change the minds of the protestors? Perhaps - but most likely not. They are bound up in a belief system and lamentably their lack of mathematical and physical knowledge will see them continuing to campaign for the most illogical of scenarios for a non-threatening technology.
In the mean time I'm off to install my own mobile base station so I can increase the power level to my handset and minimise the non-risk in my life.
Comments
There are 19 comments. Join the discussion
1. Michael Saunby
Sadly the 'cure' may come in the form of some new wonder food or exercise regime that protects victims/believers/fools from this imagined harm. Isn't it wonderful to be living in what will hopefully be the last century (or two) of witchcraft?
2. Joe Whitehead
"That means the further from the tower the lower the power received by a mobile and the higher the power transmitted back as a result."
That's priceless. It's about time people start talking about real physics. :)
This is like how coal plants have a lot of heavy metals (including actinides) and yet everyone ignores that. If you want more radioactive and heavy metals pollution, go coal! It's kind of scary how looking at things closely turns your preconceptions to dust that well and fast.
3. Henrik Eiriksson
Hi! I'm one of those protesters, and I've just read your article in horror.
You say that wireless equipment is no health risk but you are mssing very important understandings in your rationale.
You claim that only ionizing radiation can directly damage cells. That's true if you mean only snapping chemical bonds but there are a
number of catalyst effects from non-ionizing radiation that damage cells just as effectively.
You forget the, oft replicated, studies on calcium-efflux where weak pulsed microwaves (like those emitted from cellphones, wifi etc.)
tear calcium ions off of cell membranes causing them to leak like teabags. You said it yourself: "it can only jiggle cells". Since
microwaves pass through cells, the cells insides get leaky too, releasing hungry digestive enzymes onto the DNA (munch munch!).
You claim that living close to a basestation is safe but there's more going on above cell level: you forget about effects that occur
at organ level, notably glands. Weak radiation from basestations and wifi suppresses the pineal glands production of Melatonin leaving
your body unprotected against oxidative stress and chemical carcinogens. Melatonin is a potent anti-oxidant and sleep regulating
hormone.
So, my horror stems from seeing how you are misleading your readers with outdated science of EMF and health impacts.The science in the
this field has progressed far beyond thermal effects from non-ionizing microwave radiation so I hope you (and your readers) will have
a look at the BioInitiative report - the most thorough review of the scientific litterature on EMF and biological effects to date.
4. F McNish
The science you are talking about, maybe correct, but the debate is about the phone user has the choice if they want to expose EMF radiation to their head whilst using the mobile phone, regardless of the distance to the mast. The person who has a mast close to thier home and around the 75 metres where the beam of greatest intensity falls has no choice what so ever. No studies have yet been carried out on the Biological effects of EMF radation and experts are hinting that children could be at risk. This country should follow other countries and protect its population by taking precautions and keeping masts away from homes and schools until we know the facts.
5. Gary Delooze
Peter, I think you're missing a few important points here.
First, the phone is sending out just one signal but the cell mast is sending out hundreds at a time, including some to those on the edge of the cell - that is, at the highest power level. And the people who live and work in close proximity have no choice about their exposure to this - they are in effect being bathed in the field, rather than using the phone for a small time.
Secondly, you are simplifying the science to what you currently know and understand, and criticising the protesters for their lack of understanding.
History has shown time and time again that as we discover more and improve our understanding of our world, what was previously an anomalous or unexplained behaviour can become scientific fact. It is quite possible - actually very likely - that we don't yet fully appreciate the effect of the many electrostatic signals that we are emitting. But as a scientist I would not critise those who protest for their ignorance when history might just prove me to be the foolish one.
And so as a parent of a young child, please forgive my caution for not wanting to take a risk on my child's health with something that I believe we do not yet fully understand but for which there is a small amount of evidence that it might just do her some harm. I call that good parenting.
6. Simon
One thing you missed, Peter - the people who will go out and buy these shielding devices to block radiation from their phones.
It might be interesting to see if some of these protesters can cite conclusive proof that near continuous exposure to radiation in the 400-790THz band is safe - given that there are several well known illnesses caused by it. Since it clearly cannot be shown to be safe, presumably, if asked, they would agree that it should be done away with altogether.
Mind you, I imagine that a large proportion of the people who would like to ban it have freely gone out and deliberately exposed themselves to large doses of it - often with visible health issues.
So Henrik Eiriksson and Gary Delooze, what is your view on continuous exposure to radiation at these high frequencies? And at significantly higher levels than you would get from mobile phones and wi-fi.
Then we could look at other sources of radiation. Mobile phone masts emit a matter of watts, the phones, milliwatts. Yet we have some common sources pumping out megawatts - yes, MILLIONS of watts - continuously but we never hear about those.
7. anonymous
I personally feel there is a risk from low-level RF waves, and the regulations covering the radiation are not based on any real scientific fact.
Initially the limits were set by short-term exposure and checking for visible changes. Then this was reduced further by a fudge factor. But this can't equate to the way that mobile phones in particular are used, inches from the brain.
A lot of this was post-war as electronics was striving to reach higher frequencies and Russia came up with some lower limits at higher frequencies than the UK. Although I do not know what the situation is now.
In reality we don't know the risks and we can't do the testing required on human subjects. Animals, rats, mice and rabbits don't live as long as we do, so are of no real help.
We can only learn over time using statistical analysis of suspect cases.
There is not going to be a quick answer to it.
8. Peter Cochrane
Joe. Yes indeed - the last time I looked coal-fired power stations had distributed more C14 than nuclear plants by a long way. Thanks for the input. Peter
9. Peter Cochrane
To F McNish:
These folks have the choice not to buy a mobile phone and of course a microwave oven, and they may even be happy to give up their TV and radio. But the only real solution is for them to live on a desert island and get away from the modern world altogether.
Peter
10. Peter Cochrane
Gary. As we have seen througout our history, no matter the weight of evidence, belief systems cannot be argued against.
PS And don't overlook the other cell sites in the area - they tend to come in clutches of three or four plus police, radio, TV and all the other RF sources.
11. Peter Cochrane
Michael. I think we live in a new age of irrationality where people would sooner believe things rather than think or seek the truth. The great thing about belief is that it offers certainty, while science can only offer the best models we have to date based on observation, experimentation and theory.
So far no one has been killed by a mobile phone but thousands have been rescued and saved.
I reckon you just have to go figure!
Thanks, Peter
12. Peter Cochrane
Simon. Thanks for this. I think you should point out that the THz wave you cite is the radiation - light - from the sun.
And of course that microwave oven in the kitchen at 1kW may well have a leaky door acting as an antenna...
Peter
13. Peter Cochrane
To anonymous: I have no idea why you feel this way, you cite no evidence.
I can send you a long list of real problems with lots of evidence supporting their threat to us if you wish but we are not wasting our time investigating these.
Peter
14. anonymous
Would it not be possible to have a greater number of transmitters emitting less power? And if specifics do need to be taken into account, should the waveform and modulation technique not also be investigated, along with the frequency, the effects of shielding et al.
The BioInitiative report contains a wealth of information. I as a layman cannot fully digest the juxtaposition of factors. We do need to trust the experts but should we err on the side of caution?
More unbiased debate and research in this area would be gratefully recieved by all parties.
Given this, perhaps I should consider my EMF output at home.
15. Jim Price
Peter: The true situation wonderfully expressed, as usual. But what a pity the protesters against all things wireless probably won't bother the read it and certainly won't take the trouble to understand what you have written.
For calmly expressing precisely the same arguments, I was almost physically ejected from a protest meeting to which I had been specifically invited a few months ago.
I suspect I was the only person present who had any technical knowledge of the subject - the 60 or so others were mostly fired up by the simple need to protest. Not one mentioned the adverse visual impact of most base station towers.
PS I have a mobile base station 200 yards from my house, thankfully out of sight behind some trees.
16. Gary Delooze
Peter, thanks for the reply.
If you are railing against the inability of engineering to overcome belief systems, then fine, I agree.
But if you're saying that it's fine to do this within the limits of what scientific fact we do know, then I disagree completely. And where my child's health is at stake, it's a top priority for me - I'm not prepared to risk it.
Also, just because I'm unhappy with the masts in close proximity to the school doesn't mean I'm happy with the others in the cluster - personally, I would prefer a limit to the siting of masts near to schools and homes. It's a trade-off of convenience against health, but I know which way I would go.
PS Full marks for tackling an emotive topic
17. Gary Delooze
To Simon from Cumbria... You've missed my point!
I was not arguing that these technologies are not safe - they may well be - I was arguing that I am not prepared to risk that they are not with the health of my child.
My point is that we do not yet know enough about the full impact, and may not for some years (until our understanding improves or a real pattern of disease emerges). Until then I do not feel that those of us that claim to understand the science (or part of it) should attack those that protest against it.
Writing that sentence reminds me of what happened to those that claimed the world was round, or that it revolved around the sun... the 'eminent scientists' of the time derided their lack of knowledge and in some cases subjected them to death. We may well be doing the same thing here.
18. Phil Hodgson
I'm still sitting on the fence, but, if Mr Eriksson has been duped into thinking that melatonin is the only anti-oxidant produced by human cells, he is mistaken, and if he believes that the pineal gland is the only source of melatonin in the human body, he is doubly mistaken. Suppressing melatonin production will not leave the body open to oxidative stress, although it might reduce it slightly, since it is one of many such chemicals. As it is responsible for some of the body's reaction to the daily cycle of light and dark, it may affect sleeping patterns, but as far as I know, nobody has done that research in anything remotely resembling a controlled experiment.
19. anonymous
I suppose we should trust the same people who let, no made, troops watch the first atomic bomb blast - telling them it was "safe".
I wonder.. just who do we trust any more?