• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THEAMERICAN ACADEMY OF ANTI
-
AGING MEDICINE
V
ISITTHE
W
ORLD
H
EALTH
N
ETWORK
,
THEOFFICIALWEBSITEOF
A4M
ANDTHEINTERNET
SLEADINGANTI
-
AGINGPORTAL
,
ATWWW
.
WORLDHEALTH
.
NET
Anti-AgingMedical NewsAnti-AgingMedical News
WINTER2002
IN THIS ISSUE:
Cellular Phone Radiation andPotential Risks to theHuman BrainCover
History &Horizons
1Anti-Aging Pearls14
The Infinity Award 2002:24Lifetime Achievements byDr. William RegelsonThe Internets Leading26Anti-Aging Websites
New on the Market
28
Report from the Medical Committee for Aging Research and Education (Issue 2, 2002): 
Overpopulation Overrated:38Longevity’s CounterbalanceLifespan Literature Scan42Rapidly Aging US Faces 43Complex Social Issues
On the Biotech Beat:
48
High-Tech, Non-Invasive Early
Detection Diagnostic Technologies
Classifieds49Reader Feedback50
Cellular Phone Radiation andPotential Risks to the Human Brain:
 A Review of the Scientific Literature
Introduction 
 The notion that cellular phone radiationemissions might result with adverse healtheffects is the 21stcentury’s first greatenvironmental challenge. By most admissionsfrom experts and advocates on both sides of the issue, the introduction of broad-scalepublic exposure to radiofrequency andmicrowave radiation by the use of cellularphone technology represents unchartedterritory. According to the wireless industry’s tradeassociation, Cellular Telecommunications &Internet Association, at the time of this writing, 137,458,902 Americans were cellularphone subscribers. This number has
Continued on page 3
OMMENCING
A Y 
 EAR
-L
ONG
 ELEBRATION OF 
 EN 
 EARS
S
 INCE THE 
 F 
OUNDING OF 
A4M 
AND THE 
S
CIENCE OF 
A
 NTI 
-A
GING
 EDICINE 
 
 AAMN Editorial Note: This article is an excerpt from the new book, Cellular Phones: Medical Menaces of a Modern-Day Convenience, by Dr. Robert Goldman and Dr. Ronald Klatz, the physician founders of the A4M. Their keen interest in emerging risk factors that compromise either the quantityor quality of the human lifespan has prompted them to spearhead an educational initiative on the subject of the potential biological hazards of cellular  phone radiation. Visit The World Health Network, www.worldhealth.net, for availability details on the release of this must-read book.
skyrocketed since the advent of low-priced phones and service plans became widely available to the general public inthe mid-1990s. Some estimates reportthat there are 1 million new subscribersevery month. (See Figure 1.) Worldwide, it is estimated that over400 million people now use cellularphones, and by 2005 that number willrise to 1.3 billion. At the same time,this technology is now giving rise toimportant questions about possiblelong-term health consequences of cellular phone use. Because of theimmense numbers of present andfuture users, some scientists and publichealth experts are worried that even if only a small percentage are adversely affected, that could still equate to apublic health issue of epidemicproportions.
 This article surveys the scientificliterature relating to the possible adverseeffects of exposure to cellular phoneradiation to the human brain. There is,additionally, a sufficient body of evidencethat also suggests an association betweenthese emissions and:
·general malaise·immune system dysfunction·sexual and reproductive issues·changes in the central nervoussystem and cardiovascular system·elevations in blood pressure·skin damage·changes in red blood cells, possiblleading to kidney stones or heartdisease
Cellular Phone Radiation 
 Electromagnetic Fields 
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are waves of electric and magnetic energiesthat travel together, at the speed of light, and they permeate the worldaround us. Electromagnetic fieldsrepresent one of the most common andfastest growing environmentalinfluences, and exposure in allpopulations of the world will continueto increase with the advancingavailability of technology. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrumgroups radiation into two types (seeFigure 2):· “Ionizing” - having energy levelssufficiently high enough to stripelectrons from atoms andmolecules (resulting in“ionization”). It is wellestablished that exposure toionizing radiation can causeserious biological damage,including the production of cancers.· “Non-ionizing” - of an insufficientenergy to cause ionization. Withinthe “non-ionizing” portion of theEM spectrum, radiofrequency (RF) radiation includes bands usedby radio and television, cellular
3
Winter 2002 Anti-Aging Medical News
Cellular Phone Radiation &Human Brain
Continued from page 1Continued on page 5 
Figure 1 Growth in Cellular Phone Subscribership
From “Report to Congressional Requesters: Telecommunications - Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues” (ReportGAO-01-545), US Government Accounting Office, May 2001.
Figure 2 Electromagnetic Spectrum
From “Report to Congressional Requesters: Telecommunications - Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues”(Report GAO-01-545), US Government Accounting Office, May 2001.
 
5
Winter 2002 Anti-Aging Medical News
phones, and microwaves. RF,particularly at the high end of thecellular phone band and in themicrowave band, can rapidly heatbiological tissue. This heating(“thermal effect”) can cause harmby increasing body temperature,disrupting behavior, and damagingbiological tissue. Early in theshort history of cellular phones,scientists suspected that theradiation caused damage by heating, but subsequently “non-thermal” effects have become of greater concern (see
 Mechanisms of Damage
below).
 RF Fields 
Radio frequency (RF) fields are usedin many facets of everyday life, such asradio and television transmission,mobile telecommunications - namely pagers and cellular telephones, somemedical diagnostic and treatmentequipment, and in industry for heatingand sealing materials. The biologicaleffects of RF are not well understoodbecause the prominence of this form of radiation is a relatively new addition toour everyday EMF landscape.“Cellular telephones are the mostradiative appliance we have everinvented apart from the microwaveoven and people are putting them by their heads - arguably the mostsensitive part of the body,” stated bio-electromagnetics scientist RogerCoghill, who continued that “cellularphones emanate microwave radiation,and human brains may absorb up to 60percent of that energy.” Indeed, thecellular phone is, essentially, a low-powered radiotransceiver (combinationtransmitter and receiver). With the widespread public adoption of cellularphones, there has been a particularfocus of attention on potentialproblems associated with “near fieldRF exposure” - namely, exposure to thehead from the phone.
 Types of Cellular Phones &Radiation Emissions
 There are three types of cellularphones, categorized based on theradiofrequency at which they transmitand receive. From a health perspective,the signals from each of thesetechnology types are more similar thandifferent in terms of potentialbiological impact:· Analog cellular phones: operate atfrequencies between 824 MHz and894 MHz. As energy hogs, analogphones beam eight times as muchenergy into the user’s head as digitalphones do.· Digital cellular phones: operate atfrequencies between 800 and 900 MHz.· Digital PCS (personalcommunication system) phones: inthe US, PCS operates in the rangeof 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz.NOTE: Global System Mobile (GSM)is the digital standard that operates worldwide outside of the United States.It operates at 900 and 1800 MHz inEurope and Asia, and at 1900 MHz inthe US. The amount of radiation emitted by cellular phones depends on a numberof factors:·The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)of the unit. The SAR is theamount of RF energy absorbedfrom the phone into the localtissues. SAR varies by cellularphone manufacturer and model,but in the US, all FCC-compliantphones must have a maximum SARless than 1.6 watts per kilogram(W/kg). Information on SAR for aspecific phone model can beobtained for many recently manufactured phones by visitingthe Internet address, www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid, and keyingin the FCC identification numberfor that unit.·Number of “cells” in a geographicalarea, which depends upon thecellular phone traffic in that area.Large cities may have many cellsper square mile, whereas a less-populated, rural area may have asingle cell stretching over severalsquare miles. The farther away acell phone antenna is from its basestation, the higher the power levelneeded to maintain the connection. Very small cells are thereforeassociated with much lowerexposures.·Each geographical cell has a differentnumber of available channels.Cellular phones operate ideally  with the least amount of interference from neighboringchannels. To help achieve optimaloperation, cellular phonesautomatically step down to thelowest power level available thatstill maintains a connection withthe base station. On the otherhand, any physical obstacle, such asbuildings or trees, interfering with
Cellular Phone Radiation &Human Brain
Continued from page 3Continued on page 6 
“There is currentlyinsufficient scientificbasis for concluding that wireless communicationtechnologies are
safe 
orthat they pose a
risk 
tomillions of users.”
~ US Federal Drug Administration,February 8, 2000
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...