You are on page 1of 37

Mobile advertisements on T.

V channels are
provoking the increase of mobile usage and due to the
excessive and unlimited usage of cell phones our
traditional culture which is based on social
networking is in threat.
PIMSAT

PIMSAT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ACCOUNTING

UNLIMITTED USAGE OF CELL PHONES

SUBMITTED TO : SHEERAZ ALI SABRI

SUBMITTED BY : SAMIULLAH
A1FM-307002
&
WASEEM ABBAS
A1FM-307001

DATE OF SUBMITION : 26/12/2009

PRESTON INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY KCH


PIMSAT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

After so many thanks to ALLMIGHTY ALLAH, we are being grateful to our


mother, father, teacher and friends, who guided us at every step of its making.
We have no words to say thanks to the following persons also, without their co-
operation and prior support we will never reach up to the mark of success:

• MR. SOHAIB ROOMI (FRIEND)


• MS. UROOJ (LAB INCHARGE OF PIMSAT)
• MR. ALTAF AHMAD (LAB INCHARGE OF PIMSAT)
• MS. MALEHA BARRI (FRIEND)
• MR. FAHAD JAVED (FRIEND)
• MR. MOHAMMAD SAAD (TEACHER IN IU, FRIEND)
& ALL THE PIMSAT AND MORE PROBABLY THE STUDENTS OF IQRA
UNIVERSITY .
PIMSAT

ABSTRACT
We students of finance are on the project of communication model
regarding the subject of that the role of media in increasing the use of
mobile technology. For this research we have used the methodology of
quantitative paradigm, by the help of 50 surveys we have collected
desired data which helped us for the testing of hypothesis that is whether
the Cell phone advertisements on TV channels are provoking the increase
of cell phone usage and due to the excessive and unlimited use of cell
phones, our traditional culture which is based on social interaction, is in
threat or not?
Our target population is youth and the students of different educational
institutes like Iqra university and PIMSAT institute have been used as a
sample. Our research has provided such information that is very helpful
to manipulate that the great and unlimited use of mobile is taking us away
from our traditional culture that is social networking and interpersonal
communication which is based on face to face sharing of views, problems
and matters.
PIMSAT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1
2. Rational of the study 1
• Socially
• Economically
3. Objectives 2

4. Background/History 2
5. Research question 3
6. Hypothesis 3
7. Sampling 4
8. Theoretical framework 4
• Core Assumptions and Statements
• Conceptual Model
9. Application and scope 4
10. Significance 5
11. Methodology 5
12. Literature review. 5
13. Bibliography 18
14. Annexure 19
15. Question aeries. 20
16. Data Analysis in a Pie Chart Form 120
17. Conclusion 128
18. Suggestions 128
19. Future scope. 129
INTRODUCTION

Mobile, a word which is known every where in the world. When this technology was
introduced it was not known that one day it will capture people’s minds.
Now when we glance at the world we find that human beings have become dependent
on this invention and there are certain repercussions in this regard. As this is the
phenomena of every invention that it provides easiness and relaxation in the
beginning but gradually we started to know about the grey areas of that particular
invention.
Our research is also based on the destruction that mobile phones are spreading in our
social culture. Pakistan is a developing country and foreign investor has an eye on us
for investment. Day by day mobile companies are increasing, due to this tough
competition; they are using different tactics likewise cheaper call rates, low rate
message packages and wide network system. Along with these business tactics media
channels are also playing vital roles in this cold war.
High production sets, celebrities and 3D effects are using in Ads making.
These combinations are helping mobile companies to increase their consumers.
But if we look on the other part of the story we have come to know that the great and
excessive use of mobile is taking our youth towards isolation.
On the basis of this hypothesis that the excessive and unlimited use of mobile taking
us away from our traditional culture that is social interaction which is based on face to
face interaction and sharing of views, problems and personal matters.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Our Rationale of the study is to draw the attention of youth towards the negative
aspects of the cell phone likewise social, economical and educational destructions.
If we study each head thoroughly we will find that how this device causing our daily
lives
Socially: Peer to peer Interaction is decreasing day by day, individuals are isolating,
potency of love is decreasing and our traditional culture which is based on social
interaction is in threat.
Economically: Any one who has activated any sms package of any cell phone
connection company, he/she is paying minimum charges of fixed amount daily, for
instance, a customer of U-fone has activated sms package he/she is liable to pay
RS.2.79/day for 2000 msgs, In a mathematically we have find out that how much a
single customer of u-fone is paying for sms service monthly and yearly.

Rs.2.79 X 30 days a month=RS.83.7/month

Rs.83.7 X 12 month of a year=Rs.1004.4/year

But now if we multiply this amount of Rs.1004.4 with 1 million customers of u-fone
the result would be Rs.100440000, a huge amount which is contributing yearly in the
revenue of u-fone Company.
The grey areas of this device are not highlighted yet, only due to one solid reason, i.e.
availableness of connectivity at any time with our beloved ones.

OBJECTIVITES

• Does the addiction of this device is affecting our youth's social, educational
and economical sector;

• Does this harmful device is pushing our youth towards isolation;

• Does with the excessive usage of cell phone our traditional culture which is
based on social interaction is in threat;

• Does media is playing any effective role in the increase of cell phone usage;

• Does with the passage of time this device will become even more integral part
of our daily lives;

BACKGROUND/ HISTORY

Marshall McLuhan, an authority in media theory, wrote, “You just start telephoning.
Anybody can walk into any manager's office by telephone...the telephone is an
irresistible intruder in time and space.” While cell phones didn't exist when McLuhan
made this observation in 1964, his words hold true today. This 'intruder' is now
distorting time and space to the worldwide audience by helping to create a world
where inhabitants demand immediate gratification from almost every aspect of daily
life.

McLuhan seemed frustrated that the phone makes it possible to talk to someone
without actually being in their physical presence. He would be shocked today to
discover that so many people own a wireless communication device that can easily
communicate with almost anyone. The phone has moved from a desk to the pockets
of its owner.

When using the phone we paint a picture of who we are talking to and the setting they
are in. McLuhan says the telephone is “…the extension of ear and voice that is a kind
of extra sensory perception.” He theorizes that the telephone becomes a “sixth sense”
used to interpret communication. In face-to face interactions, we can use body
language to interpret the messages we receive; in a phone conversation, we can’t use
these physical cues to understand the speaker. We begin to rely on extra-sensory
perception. Our minds must interpret information using auditory cues rather than the
visual and special cues that to which we have grown accustomed. Would you trust
someone more that you’ve met in person, or someone that you’ve only talked to on
the phone? Meeting someone in person allows you to pick up these visual cues and
body language. This interaction gives you more information to make an informed
decision. Will this behavior change in the future as we use cell phones more?
Some of McLuhan’s theory is no longer as relevant. He goes on to state "The
telephone demands complete participation, unlike the written and printed page." He
saw a ringing phone as something that required full and immediate attention. After all,
your books don’t have ring tones. In a time before caller ID or answering machines, a
ringing phone would “demand” to be picked up. Today we have the luxury of
ignoring this ring or returning the call at our convenience. Additionally, people multi-
task while on the phone much more than they used to now that the restrictions of a
corded phone have been lifted. In McLuhan’s time, a phone call was for news
exchange rather than the variety of motivations for cell phone use today, including
mobile games, texting and web browsing.

McLuhan may have been onto something else. He observed that many people doodle
while on a corded phone. He explained this behavior as a replacement for sight in a
face-to-face conversation. To be fully engaged, perhaps we must participate on
multiple levels. Has our world has become so fast-paced that we 'doodle' (or drive,
walk and shop) on the phone to effectively participate in a conversation? Will society
reach a point where face-to-face interaction is no longer needed?

In coming years cell phones will become an even more integral part of our daily lives.
As smart phones and PDA phones become more common, and cell phone software
improves, users will be empowered by the information and features offered by their
device. Telephone communication has certainly changed since Marshall Mcluhan’s
time. While we are no longer literally tied to our desks, we may now be tied to our
cell phones, our "mobile" desks.

RESURCH QUESTION;

Mobile advertisements on T.V channels are provoking the increase of mobile usage
and due to the excessive and unlimited usage of cell phones our traditional culture
which is based on social networking is in threat.

HYPOTHESIS

Our research work is based on the hypothesis i.e., whether the Cell phone
advertisements on TV channels are provoking the increase of cell phone usage and
due to the excessive and unlimited use of cell phones, our traditional culture which is
based on social interaction, is in threat or not?

Testing Of Hypothesis: On the basis of 15 pie charts hypothesis will be tested,

Target population: Our target population is youth and students


SAMPLING

The rationale of our research is to draw the attention of youth towards the negative
aspects of excessive usage of cell phone for this motive we will take random sample
of 100 students from different universities, likewise Iqra University (I.U), Karachi
and PIMSAT Karachi.

THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

Cultivation Theory
(Television Shapes Concepts Of Social Reality)

Core Assumptions and Statements


Cultivation theory in its most basic form, suggests that television is responsible for
shaping, or ‘cultivating’ viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The combined effect
of massive television exposure by viewers over time subtly shapes the perception of
social reality for individuals and, ultimately, for our culture as a whole. Gerbner
argues that the mass media cultivate attitudes and values which are already present in
a culture: the media maintain and propagate these values amongst members of a
culture, thus binding it together. He has argued that television tends to cultivate
middle-of-the- road political perspectives. Gerbner called this effect ‘mainstreaming’.
Cultivation theorists distinguish between ‘first order’ effects (general beliefs about the
everyday world, such as about the prevalence of violence) and ‘second order’ effects
(specific attitudes, such as to law and order or to personal safety). There is also a
distinction between two groups of television viewers: the heavy viewers and the light
viewers. The focus is on ‘heavy viewers’. People who watch a lot of television are
likely to be more influenced by the ways in which the world is framed by television
programs than are individuals who watch less, especially regarding topics of which
the viewer has little first-hand experience. Light viewers may have more sources of
information than heavy viewers. ‘Resonance’ describes the intensified effect on the
audience when what people see on television is what they have experienced in life.
This double dose of the televised message tends to amplify the cultivation effect.

Conceptual Model

APPLICATION AND SCOPE


In our research we have observed that media is cultivating our culture according to the
agenda of the telecom companies. Recently an advertisement of the U-fone was on
airing on T.V. In it two characters were acting as a husband and wife. The situation of
the scene was quarrel between them on any subject matter but the weird thing of this
advertisement is that they were fighting through text messages. A voice over was
coming from behind that "AB CHAHAY LADAI HO YA GUPSHUP LOG TU SMS
K ZARIYAE HE BAT KIYA KARTAY HAI". By seeing this we can conclude that
media is cultivating our culture. May be this act of weirdness is not be implemented
affectively in present scenario but we can predict that with the passage of time it will
defiantly affect the masses.

SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of the study is to draw the attention of youth towards the negative
aspects of the cell phone likewise social, economical and educational destructions.
If we study each head thoroughly we will find that how this device causing our daily
lives

METHODOLOGY

Our research is quantifiable in nature due to this reason we will follow paradigm of
Quantitative Methodology; our target population is youth and the method that we will
use in this enquiry is survey, which will conduct from the sample of 100 students of
different universities. We will follow all the rules and methods of quantitative
methodology which are require for our research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

We have fully tried to find out relevant data regarding literature review but we have
just find one article on the internet which was written by Marshall McLuhan, In 1964
he wrote against the forefather(Telephone) of the cell phone and predicted the future
circumstances of this invention . Now with the passage of time his words hold true
today. Cell phones have drastically changed the way we communicate. Like the leap
from agricultural to industrial, the jump from wired to wireless phones is equally
significant. For many of us, the cell phone is an element of our wardrobe. Wireless
phones have created social and structural standards that have changed our
communication expectations; we now live and work in a global society that operates
on a 24-hour schedule. The wireless phone has created an expectation of immediacy;
unlike its land line predecessor, this communication takes place anytime, anywhere.
Where did these behaviors tied to cell phones originate???

ARTICLE FROM AN INTERNET SOURCE;

Initially, the shift to instant communication was not well received. The wired
telephone was patented in 1876. Quickly, it became apparent that the phone was here
to stay. This new technology did not excite everyone. The New York Daily Graphi
ran this headline for March 15, 1877: “The Terrors of the Telephone – The Orator of
the Future.” The idea of a different method for communication was frightening and
unfamiliar to a society so grounded in the written word. It is difficult to imagine what
the people of the nineteenth century would think of the over 2 billion cell phones that
are in use today.

Marshall McLuhan, an authority in media theory, wrote, “You just start telephoning.
Anybody can walk into any manager's office by telephone...the telephone is an
irresistible intruder in time and space.” While cell phones didn't exist when McLuhan
made this observation in 1964, his words hold true today. This 'intruder' is now
distorting time and space to the worldwide audience by helping to create a world
where inhabitants demand immediate gratification from almost every aspect of daily
life.

McLuhan seemed frustrated that the phone makes it possible to talk to someone
without actually being in their physical presence. He would be shocked today to
discover that so many people own a wireless communication device that can easily
communicate with almost anyone. The phone has moved from a desk to the pockets
of its owner.

When using the phone we paint a picture of who we are talking to and the setting they
are in. McLuhan says the telephone is “…the extension of ear and voice that is a kind
of extra sensory perception.” He theorizes that the telephone becomes a “sixth sense”
used to interpret communication. In face-to face interactions, we can use body
language to interpret the messages we receive; in a phone conversation, we can’t use
these physical cues to understand the speaker. We begin to rely on extra-sensory
perception. Our minds must interpret information using auditory cues rather than the
visual and special cues that to which we have grown accustomed. Would you trust
someone more that you’ve met in person, or someone that you’ve only talked to on
the phone? Meeting someone in person allows you to pick up these visual cues and
body language. This interaction gives you more information to make an informed
decision. Will this behavior change in the future as we use cell phones more?

Some of McLuhan’s theory is no longer as relevant. He goes on to state "The


telephone demands complete participation, unlike the written and printed page." He
saw a ringing phone as something that required full and immediate attention. After all,
your books don’t have ringtones. In a time before caller ID or answering machines, a
ringing phone would “demand” to be picked up. Today we have the luxury of
ignoring this ring or returning the call at our convenience. Additionally, people multi-
task while on the phone much more than they used to now that the restrictions of a
corded phone have been lifted. In McLuhan’s time, a phone call was for news
exchange rather than the variety of motivations for cell phone use today, including
mobile games, texting and web browsing.

McLuhan may have been onto something else. He observed that many people doodle
while on a corded phone. He explained this behavior as a replacement for sight in a
face-to-face conversation. To be fully engaged, perhaps we must participate on
multiple levels. Has our world has become so fast-paced that we 'doodle' (or drive,
walk and shop) on the phone to effectively participate in a conversation? Will society
reach a point where face-to-face interaction is no longer needed?

In coming years cell phones will become an even more integral part of our daily lives.
As smartphones and PDA phones become more common, and cell phone software
improves, users will be empowered by the information and features offered by their
device. Telephone communication has certainly changed since Marshall Mcluhan’s
time. While we are no longer literally tied to our desks, we may now be tied to our
cell phones, our "mobile" desks.

KARINEN, A., HEINAVAARA;

A few days ago, I came across an article on Engadget that mentioned almost in
passing some studies that seemed to indicate health problems or no health problems,
depending on the specific study, due to the ubiquitous and maligned cellular
telephone. Not having dealt with this issue much on my blog, I decided to take a look,
mostly out of curiosity. The claims that cell phones somehow cause cancer have been
circulating for many years, and the studies marshaled to show such a link have in
general been not that impressive. However, even though radiofrequency radiation of
the sort used in cell phones does not break chemical bonds or induce mutations, it's
not entirely implausible that prolonged exposure to cell phone radiation over a long
period of time, although it does, on the surface, appear fairly unlikely using a prior
probability argument.

It turned out that fellow ScienceBlogger Revere took on what has to be the weakest of
tha bunch, a unimpressive study in which normal volunteers were exposed to
radiofrequency modulated electromagnetic fields similar to that of cell phones, after
which punch biopsies from exposed areas of skin and from unexposed areas were
taken. The researchers then examined the levels of 579 different proteins by a test
known as 2D gelelectrophoresis to determine whether the levels of any of them rose
or fell. They found that there were eight proteins whose levels varied by a statistically
significant amount. Unfortunately, by random chance alone, we'd expect to find
around 5% of the proteins (or 29) appearing to vary by a statistically "significant"
amount. More importantly, for nearly all the "positives," the variability of the ratios of
EMF-exposed/control was so large as to make any biologically meaningful conclusion
virtually impossible. Even worse, there was no verification of whether messenger
RNA rose or fell synchronously or other confirmation of the result.

Examining the totality of the study, including design, statistics, and protein gels, I was
not at all impressed with it as evidence for a specific biological effect due to cell
phone radiation. That's even cutting it some slack as a pilot study. Indeed, I'm a little
surprised Revere even brought this study up as evidence for the possibility of a
specific effect, given that, both statistically and from a protein expression point of
view, it appears actually to be at least as consistent with no significant biological
effect due to cell phone radiation on human skin as with a biological effect.

That's why I spend so little time on it and instead want to move on to a different
study, which purports to show that cell phone radiation contributes to male infertility,
a concern for all men, to put it mildly.

The article, published by a group from the Cleveland Clinic and an Indian group and
entitled Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility
clinic: an observational study concludes that cell phone use negatively affects a
variety of parameters indicative of sperm health. But is the implied conclusion,
namely that cell phone radiation harms male fertility, justified?

Probably not from this study.

Briefly, the study examined 361 men attending an infertility clinic from September
2004 to October 2005. The mean age of the study population was 31.81±6.12 years.
The men were divided into four groups based on their self-reported cell phone usage:
none; less than 2 hours a day; 2-4 hours a day; and greater than 4 hours a day. Semen
samples were collected, and several standard parameters measured. It was found that
there was no correlation between cell phone use and semen volume, liquefaction time,
pH, and viscosity. However, a negative correlation adjusted for age was observed
between increasing cell phone use and sperm count, motility, sperm viability, and
percent normal morphology. The authors concluded that cell phone usage was
associated with sperm and semen parameters associated with decreased male fertility.

This study has a number of shortcomings that make me take its conclusion with a
huge grain of salt. Right off the bat, I note that it's an observational study, and such
studies are fraught with problems. Another huge problem with this study is that the
men being studied are not a representative group by definition. After all, they are
coming to an infertility clinic. As the article itself points out, infertility affects
approximately 15% of reproductive age couples, with nearly half of these cases being
due to male factor infertility. That means, right off the bat, without knowing anything
more about the study we can predict that close to 50% of the men being examined will
have problems with sperm count, motility, or other parameters indicative of low
fertility. That's much higher than the 7% or so that would be expected among the
general population of men of reproductive age at large.

A second problem is that the four parameters that showed a decrease are not
independent. They are related, and in this study showed significant positive
correlation with each other. If one goes up, all tend to go up, and if one goes down, all
tend to go down. However, together, they do correlate with the health (or lack thereof)
of spermatozoa.

However, these problems pale in significance with the single biggest problem of the
study: the utter failure even to try to control for confounding factors other than age.
Not only did the authors not validate cell phone exposure independently, but they did
not examine the occupational history of the subjects or other potential exposures of
radiofrequency radiation. The reason this is significant is that there could be a factor
common to these men with decreased fertility that is the real cause of their problems
that is also correlated with cell phone use. Examples that come to mind might include
number of airplane flights per year, given that airline travel exposes travelers to
natural background radiation. I'm not saying that this is the case; I'm merely saying
that there's a strong possibility that there could be a confounding factor like that that
only makes it appear that increasing cell phone use is correlated with decreased
fertility and that it is a serious shortcoming of the study that such a factor was not
more actively sought. Had I been a peer reviewer for this paper, I would have come
down hard on the authors for this. Indeed, a similar critique was leveled at the same
investigators for the same study when they presented it at the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine meeting a year and a half ago:
However, Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield,
said "This is a good quality study but I don't think it tackles the issue.

"If you're using your phone for four hours a day, presumably it is out of your pocket
for longer. That raises a big question: how is it that testicular damage is supposed to
occur?"

He said mobile phone use may be a marker for other lifestyle factors known to affect
sperm quality.

"Maybe people who use a phone for four hours a day spend more time sitting in cars,
which could mean there's a heat issue. It could be they are more stressed, or more
sedentary and sit about eating junk food getting fat. Those seem to be better
explanations than a phone causing the damage at such a great distance" he added.

The comment about "great distance" brings up an aspect of this study that bothers me
as well: Most people do not use their cell phones close to their genitals. True, with the
increasing use of Bluetooth headsets this may be changing, as men leave the phone in
its belt holster and use those funny-looking headsets with the blue blinking lights, but
for the most part people still hold the headset to their ear when using a cell phone.
Radiation intensity drops off rapidly with distance, and there's a huge difference
between holding the phone to one's ear and and using it in the holster.

The bottom line is that, although there is some evidence in mouse and rat studies
suggesting that cell phone radiation might induce sperm abnormalities, the evidence
that cell phone use is associated with decreased fertility in human men is far from
convincing thus far. The animal studies render the possibility of a negative effect on
fertility somewhat plausible from a biological standpoint, but most human studies,
this one included, that I've seen concluding such a problem exists tend to be plagued
by methodological difficulties and inadequate controls for confounding factors. Still,
further research into this question is warranted. In any case, if, as Steve Novella
suggests in his cautious examination of whether cell phone usage is a risk factor for
brain or head and neck cancers, one way to mitigate any risk that might exist for such
tumors is to use a headset in order to keep the cell phone antenna away from the head,
the consequence might be more male infertility. Given that possibility, I'd guess that
most men would tend to opt for an uncertain possibility of perhaps a slightly increased
risk of brain cancer over a similar uncertain possibility of a slightly increased risk of
infertility.

That's assuming, of course, that there even is a problem. In the meantime, I'm not
planning on getting rid of my cell phone.

REFERENCES:

1. Karinen, A., Heinavaara, S., Nylund, R., Leszczynski, D. (2008). Mobile phone
radiation might alter protein expression in human skin. BMC Genomics, 9(1), 77.
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-77
2. AGARWAL, A. (2008). Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men
attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertility and Sterility, 89(1), 124-
128. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166

Comments;

1. I can think of a lot of men for whom infertility is not a "problem." Seems to me
Abel Pharmboy just blogged about his vasectomy, after all...

(Being in the committed null Para demographic but unfortunately heterosexual, I'd
have to remark, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!")

Now, male impotence is probably something the vast majority of men (excluding the
asexual ones who probably see it as a feature too) find to be a problem.

Posted by: Interrobang | February 27, 2008 9:56 AM

2. "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Heartily seconded. Maybe we could turn cell phones into the first widely used male
contraception, especially if it is reversible.

On the other hand, men who still want to keep their fertiliy at all times (you never
know, you may be called upon for a short fuse insemination one day) could use the
new lead-lined Sperm-friendly ManBag(tm) to hold their phones.

Posted by: SabrinaW | February 27, 2008 11:03 AM

3. Wouldn't the ManBag have the distinct drawback of making it impossible to


receive calls on the cell phone?

Oh, wait. A feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Orac | February 27, 2008 11:05 AM

4. I love all these "studies" regarding the effects of mobiles on whatever. It seems that
their half life is getting shorter even, now that there is quite a body of investigations
available. My absolute favorite is this:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/104036
Here somebody looked at cancer cases in the vicinity of a cell phone base station, but
not only was the sample size very small and the people living there initiated the
investigation because they thought there were more cases, but as the study was
published, Telecom Austria showed that there never was a running station at that site,
the next one was 5km away. Comment of the author: "That´s not what we have
heard..."

Posted by: bcpmoon | February 27, 2008 12:15 PM


5. Having studied communications electronics, and thus the electromagnetic
spectrum, quite extensively, I have trouble taking any of these studies seriously.
Knowledge is a bad thing for a doomsayer to come across.
I can think of a lot of men for whom infertility is not a "problem."

That would certainly be fine with me me. I would be quite content being infertile. In
fact, that would make me happy. Just yesterday, inspired by a post on a different blog,
I blogged on the very subject of being childfree by choice, and I wish it were as easy
as simply not being able to have kids at all.

Posted by: Godless Geek | February 27, 2008 12:41 PM

6. Covering the phone in a ManBag still leaves sensitive male body bits exposed to
other potentially harmful (or at least scary sounding) environmental radiation sources.
The careful disemminator of genetic information would store the family jewels within
that protective covering.

Posted by: Jim | February 27, 2008 1:26 PM

7. "However, even though radiofrequency radiation of the sort used in cell phones
does not break chemical bonds or induce mutations, it's not entirely implausible that
prolonged exposure to cell phone radiation over a long period of time..."

I think it is.

Cell phone radiation ~1 GHz. That means each photon carries


(h*nu)=(1*10^9)*(6.6*10^-34)=6.6*10^-25 J = 4 micro-eV

kT at room temperature = 30 meV (that's milli-eV)

So, we survive pretty well in an environment where every molecule is banging around
amongst other molecules with on average 30 meV of energy. We should be worried
about adding photons with 10^-4 times that energy?

Posted by: delurking | February 27, 2008 3:22 PM

8. "Do Cell Phones make men sterile?"


Well less reproductive anyway, you will never get anywhere with a potential mate if
you keep yabbering on the cell.

Posted by: sailor | February 27, 2008 7:32 PM

9. I must agree with Orac. The possibility of biological effects of cell phone radiation
is plausible. Non-ionizing radiation still causes heating. It's not that the energy of each
photon is so low, but that the total energy absorbed by the tissues can raise the
temperature. (The usual concern is for the head, but the unmentionables could also be
affected.)

I think we could all imagine the possibility that local heating from cell phones could
affect fertility.
There was also a recent study that showed electric fields could disrupt cellular
function. Keeping in mind the study in this link does NOT deal with microwave
frequencies (so I am not sure how relevant it is), there might yet be other possibilities
for biological effects of cellular radiation.

However, the studies that get trumpeted as actually showing any kind of link have
severe methodological problems -- as Orac shows in this example.

So while there's definitely no evidence of cell phones causing harm, the (remote?)
possibility of harm may still be plausible.

Posted by: Mister Troll | February 28, 2008 10:29 PM

10. "I must agree with Orac. The possibility of biological effects of cell phone
radiation is plausible. Non-ionizing radiation still causes heating. It's not that the
energy of each photon is so low, but that the total energy absorbed by the tissues can
raise the temperature. (The usual concern is for the head, but the unmentionables
could also be affected.)"

I didn't mention this because I thought it was so obviously not an issue. The natural
variation in your body temperature throughout the day is larger than any heating that
can be caused by a cell phone. Or, make a rough estimate for the heat transfer to the
testes (or to the brain) in a hot shower or in sunlight and the cell phone concern
vanishes.

Dr. Ronald B. Herberman;


(July 24, 2008, 07:13 am)·

The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to


his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of
cancer.

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh
Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer
and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to
get answers from science and he believes people should take action now -- especially
when it comes to children.

"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to
come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.

Dr. Herberman is a highly respected cancer center director, which is why I can't help
but wonder just what on earth he was smoking when he decided to do this. It strikes
me as being rash in the extreme; the announcement even admits that the published
data do not support a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. This is alarmism
that, I suspect, even Revere would have a hard time supporting, because it goes far
beyond the published evidence and is based on "early unpublished data." Scaring the
nation based on "early unpublished data" is irresponsible in the extreme. Why did Dr.
Herberman do it?

The question of whether cell phones cause or contribute to the development of brain
tumors is not as easy a question to answer as one might think. First, there is the issue
of biological plausibility. Radiowave energy at the power level used by most cell
phones, is not ionizing, and our understanding of cancer is that, in general, ionizing
radiation is what is required for radiation to cause or contribute to cancer. That does
not mean that there isn't a potential mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can
cause cancer that we don't know about yet, but it makes hypothesis that cell phone
radiation causes brain cancer less plausible. Too, we can actually test radiofrequency
radiation in the same power range used in cell phones on cells in cell culture in order
to determine whether exposure to such radiation can cause changes associated with
malignant transformation. There is one confounding effect that has to be controlled
for in such experiments (but is not always), namely that radiofrequency radiation
interacts with water in order to heat it. Still, there are no compelling studies showing
any specific effect of radiofrequency radiation on cells to induce changes associated
with malignant transformation, at least none that I'm aware of. Animal studies are
prone to the same sorts of problems as cell culture studies, but even so there is no
good quality animal data that I'm aware of implicating cell phone radiation in the
formation of cancer. On a basic science basis, there doesn't appear to be strong
evidence of a plausible mechanism or effect.

That brings us to epidemiological studies. For us to consider any epidemiological to


be support for the hypothesis that cell phones cause brain cancer, there must be a few
key results. First, there must be an increased incidence of brain cancer in cell phone
users. It's even more convincing if there is some sort of dose-response phenomenon.
In other words, there should be an increasing risk of cancer with increasing cell phone
use. Other results that also support the hypothesis would be tumors correlated with
proximity. In other words, do people who primarily use their left hand to hold their
phones to their ears tend to get tumors primarily on the left and people who primarily
hold their phones with their right hand tend to get tumors primarily on the right?
Finally, there should be a plausible lag time between exposure and tumor
development consistent with known lag times for cancer, say 10-20 years, and some
specificity. In other words, does exposure to cell phone radiation correlate with
certain types of tumors and not others? There are other aspects of the results of a
study that can more strongly support the hypothesis that cell phones cause brain
cancer, but these are the main ones.

In general, however, getting "clean" data from an epidemiologic study of cell phone
use that can support a strong enough correlation to suggest causation is very difficult.
In order to correlate cell phone use with an increased incidence of brain tumors, it's
necessary somehow to be able to reliably quantify cell phone usage. This presents a
big problem. It's generally not possible to continuously observe people with their cell
phones for years on end and obtain objective measurements. Another way is to ask
people how much they use their cell phones, but memories are unreliable, and such
methods are very prone to recall bias in the form of people with brain tumors being
more likely to remember their cell phone use as having been heavy. That's not even
counting trying to control of the number of potentially confounding factors, such as
heavy cell phone use being associated with certain jobs or, especially for 10-20 years
ago when cell phones were far less common, with higher socioeconomic status. Then
there's the shift in technology from analog to digital in the early 2000s, which
changed the power and frequencies used.

Of course, there are ways to overcome the limitations of retrospective studies. For
example, an investigator can try to look at cell phone bills and see the number of
minutes used per month, but who keeps their bills for 10 or 20 years, which is the
time of exposure most relevant to the development of cancer? Alternatively, one can
abandon the retrospective study altogether and follow people prospectively and have
them report their cell phone usage from their bills every month. However, because
brain tumors are a fairly uncommon form of cancer, thousands upon thousands of
subjects would have to be followed this way, and it would take at least a decade or
two to start to see any results. Also, it would be very hard to enforce a control group,
given the ubiquity of cell phones.

Despite the difficulties, several epidemiological studies have been done, with largely
negative results. Surprisingly, the NPR report actually summarizes them pretty well:

The issue that concerns some scientists -- though nowhere near a consensus -- is
electromagnetic radiation, especially its possible effects on children. It is not a major
topic in conferences of brain specialists.

A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies -- including some


Herberman cites -- with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found
no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential
elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation
by future studies."

Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.

"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is
-- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency
Web site.

A French study based on Interphone research and published in 2007 concluded that
regular cell phone users had "no significant increased risk" for three major types of
nervous system tumors. It did note, however, that there was "the possibility of an
increased risk among the heaviest users" for one type of brain tumor, but that needs to
be verified in future research.

Earlier research also has found no connection.

Steve Novella also summarized the state of the evidence regarding cell phone use and
the risk of cancer and concluded that we can probably rule out a strong correlation
between cell phone radiation and cancer, but we do not yet have enough data to rule
out a small increased risk of brain tumors due to cell phones, particularly in children. I
mostly agree with this characterization of the state of the evidence at present, which is
why I find statements like this to be overblown fear-mongering:
A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the
university's center for environmental oncology.

"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an
interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as
recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that
they are safe."

I think PalMD got it right when he sarcastically retorted:

Hey, I don't know for an absolute certainty that my popcorn won't spontaneously
combust, but I'm not yelling fire either.

To which I'd add: Hey, I don't know with absolute certainty that vaccines don't cause
autism, but I'm not joining the anti-vaccinationists.

The actual warning is even worse, delving into some truly dubious comparisons:

In the early 1980's, the owners of asbestos mines were reduced to bankruptcy as a
result of lawsuits brought by the families of deceased exposed workers. A few years
later, a key executive of Johns Manville, the most prominent company, drew lessons
from the years of struggle of his industry against medical data and the scientists who
were drawing attention to the risks of asbestos. He concluded with regret that greater
warnings for the public, the establishment of more effective precautions, and more
extensive medical research "could have saved lives, and probably also shareholders,
the industry, and the benefits of its product."

We call on the cell phone companies to provide independent access to records of use
so that appropriate studies can be carried out.

Earlier in the report there was even a comparison with tobacco! Here's the difference
that makes these comparisons specious. Tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen. We
have many in vitro and animal studies showing the mechanisms by which it induces
cancer. Similarly, although the mechanism of how asbestos induces cancer remains
unclear, we similarly have animal studies that show that it can. We have no such
studies showing biological plausibility for cell phone radiation.

Particularly strange is Davis's statement:

She said 20 different groups have endorsed the advice the Pittsburgh cancer institute
gave, and authorities in England, France and India have cautioned children's use of
cell phones.

As PalMD astutely pointed out, these 20 groups did not actually endorse UPCC's
report; rather they endorsed recommendations similar to the recommendations in the
report.

Having looked over this report and the news coverage it engendered, I still can't figure
out what on earth possessed Dr. Herberman to allow it to be issued. Even if the
unpublished data are as alarming as implied (unlikely, given the number of previous
studies that found either no risk or a questionable very slight risk) and the National
Research Council in the U.S. is wrong about its being highly skewed due to selection
bias, as a responsible leader in public health and cancer, you don't pull something like
this. You just don't. It's irresponsible as hell. A few months to get the data published
in a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a major meeting are not going to make a
difference, given the long lag time of cancer, and waiting until it is published will at
least allow scientists and physicians to vet the data and decide if, on balance taking
into account its limitations, it warrants such a strong warning. Or, if you really believe
you can't wait a few months because the risk is so horrible, then release the data with
the warning, so that scientists can judge whether the warning is warranted.

Fortunately, many Americans seem to have more common sense than our cancer
leaders:

"I think if they gave me specific numbers and specific information and it was scary
enough, I would be concerned," Loughran said, planning to call her mother again in a
matter of minutes. "Without specific numbers, it's too vague to get me worked up."

Comments.

1. Cell phones have been around since the 1980s. The lag time for cancer
development is about 20 years. If cell phones were a risk factor for brain cancers, one
might expect to see a spike in brain cancer incidence about now. There is no such
spike. The incidence of brain cancer has actually decreased slightly since a high in the
1980s. This doesn't rule out a subtle effect counteracted by a decrease due to other,
unknown factors, but it does not support the idea that cell phones are a risk factor in
the development of brain cancers.

2. I'm from Israel, and yesterday our Department of Health issued an official warning
about cell phones, recommending to avoid keeping them near the body, and to keep
them away from children.
Why? Three reasons.

The first was, well, the nonsense discussed above in this post. They just totally
jumped on the recommendation of Herberman (even though all the news reports I saw
managed to misspell his name as Heberman)

The other was a research done by local researchers that allegedly found relation
between cellular phone usage and "Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors". Mind you, the
doctor in charge of this research was also quoted in the paper as saying that (roughly
translated by me) "A two-three years old kid who says hello to an aunt or
grandmother on the cell phone is a situation close to child abuse".
This quote was, according to the article, not based on her own research, but on the
recent research by Herberman...

3. You may want to review who pays for the studies that conclude there's little cause
for concern. I've found that industry-sponsored studies invariably demonstrate no
harm from cell phones, cordless phones and WIFI. In contrast, truly independent
studies are much more likely to show connections between brain and salivary gland
tumors, hearing and memory loss, breaching the blood brain barrier, skin rashes,
sperm quality and sleep disturbance.

Look at the work of Henry Lai, a radiation expert at the University of Washington.
Here's a link: http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai2.htm

As you research the data you'll find that cell phones were first developed by the
Pentagon. The devices then entered the commercial market before pre-market safety
testing, thanks to a loop hole in FDA regulations.

Robert Kane was an industry insider who wrote the book "Cellular Telephone Russian
Roulette". Kane, an electrical engineer, believes that cell phones are indeed a
technology that has damaging effects, particularly to children. Despite years of
military research showing harm from electro-magnetic radiation, this data has largely
been ignored. The technology obviously has friends in high places. Federal legislation
prevents citizens from objecting to cell phones towers based on health concerns.
Kane's book is surprisingly out of print and is not available via Amazon.com, even as
a used copy. This prompts suspicions that the telecoms bought all available copies and
pulped them. I finally found a copy via interlibrary loan.

4. Radiowave energy at the power level used by most cell phones, is not ionizing, and
our understanding of cancer is that, in general, ionizing radiation is what is required
for radiation to cause or contribute to cancer."

I wish you would include some numbers in your posts about this stuff. Photons at 1
GHz have an energy of 4 x 10^-6 eV. kT at room temperature is .028 eV. So, just
saying it is "not ionizing" is like saying "scores of people died in WWII". Literally it
is true, but it conveys an impression that is orders of magnitude off. Basically, cell
phone photons have an energy of 10^-6 times the threshold of ionizing radiation. Each
photon has about 10^-4 kT at room temperature. Saying "most cell phones" also
implies that some cell phones might be dangerous. No cell phone transmits or receives
ionizing radiation.

5. Dr. H had only argued that using cell phones while driving causes brain cancer.
That's something I could get behind. And maybe he could toss in that the larger the
vehicle the more aggressive the cancer, that'd be great.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

WWW.Cellphoneforums.net/Cellphoneforums /blogs/rambling of a
forum admin/

WWW. Marshall McLuhan.com

WWW.fiercewireless.com/story/spri
Annexure

The instrument which we have chose for data collection is the set of
15 questions in the form of questioner.

Methodology: Quantitative Methodology.

Method: Survey.

Target population: Our target population is youth.

Survey Findings And Data Analysis in a Pie Chart Form


PIMSAT

PIMSAT
Department Of Finance & Accounting

Introduction;
Our research is based on the study regarding the role of media in the
increase of mobile usage. Your contribution will provide us important information
which is very helpful to draw youth’s attention towards this harmful device.

Q.1: Where do you get to know about the mobile service packages?
a) Media advertisement
b) Call center
c) Friends

Q.2: Have you activated any SMS package?


a) Yes
b) No

Q.3: Do you ever achieve the SMS limit?


a) Yes
b) No

Q.4: How many messages you deliver approximately per day?


a) 1-300
b) 300-600
c) 600-unlimited

Q.5: Do you think that due to the use of short English in SMS your spelling mistakes
are increasing?
a) Yes
b) No

Q.6: Do you think mis-use of Ahmed Faraz or any other poet’s poetry is unethical?
a) Yes
b) No

Q.7: When do you meet your friends & family members?


a) Daily
b) Weekly
c) Monthly
Q.8: According to you which way is more effective to get to know about your friends
& family members circumstances/matters?
a) Face to Face
b) SMS
c) Call

Q.9: Do you think that due to excessive use of mobile we are going towards isolation?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know

Q.10: Do you think that our grand parents were more honest and involved in their
relations than us?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know

Q.11: Do you think that excessive use of mobile is creating an anxiety factor among
youth?
a) No
b) Yes

Q.12: Do you think that in near future cell phone will become even more integral part
of our daily lives?
a) Yes
b) No

Q.13: Are you in favor that there should be any mobile restriction for a child until
unless he/she reaches to the age of adultery?
a) Yes
b) No

Q.14: How much amount do you spend to fulfill your cell phone expenses in a month?
b) Rs.500-Rs.1000
c) Rs.1000-Rs.2000
d) Rs.2000-Rs.3000

Q.15: Do you think due to cell phone crime ratio is increasing day by day?
a) Yes
b) No

We are very thankful to you for sharing your precious views with us
Survey Findings And Data Analysis in a Pie Chart Form

Q.1: Where do you get to know about the mobile service packages?
a) Media advertisement
b) Call center
c) Friends

Media
26% Advertisments
Call center
12% 62%
Friends

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color represent media
advertisement, violet color represent call center and light yellow represent
friends, According to pie chart 62% select pale blue, 12% select violet and 26%
select light yellow.

Q.2: Have you activated any SMS package?


a) Yes
b) No

9, 9%

Yes
No

91, 91%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color represent that
91,91% select Yes and 9,9% select violet color its mean No.
Q.3: Do you ever achieve the SMS limit?
a) Yes
b) No

27, 27%
Yes
No
73, 73%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color represent that
73,73% select Yes and 27,27% select violet color its mean No.

Q.4: How many messages you deliver approximately per day?


a) 1-50
b) 50-200
c) 200-unlimited

73, 38% 001-50


90, 48%
50-200
200-unlimited
27, 14%

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 73,38% select
001-50 messages, violet color show 27,14% select 50-200 messages and light
yellow show 90,48% select 200-unlimited messages.
Q.5: Do you think that due to the use of short English in SMS your spelling
mistakes are increasing?
a) Yes
b) No

27, 27%
Yes
No
73, 73%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color represent that
70,70% select Yes use of short English in SMS your spelling mistakes are
increasing and 30,30% select violet color its mean No.

Q.6: Do you think mis-use of Ahmed Faraz or any other poet’s poetry is
unethical?
a) Yes
b) No

16, 16%

Yes
No

84, 84%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color show that 84,84%
select Yes mis-use of Ahmed Faraz or any other poet’s poetry is unethical and
16.16% select violet color its mean No.
Q.7: When do you meet your friends & family members?
a) Daily
b) Weekly
c) Monthly

13, 13%
Daily
17, 17%
Weekly
70, 70% Monthly

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 70,70% select
Daily, violet color show 17,17% select Weekly and light yellow show 13,13%
select Monthly.

Q.8: According to you which way is more effective to get to know about your
friends & family members circumstances/matters?
a) Face to Face
b) SMS
c) Call

Face to Face
90, 48% 84, 44%
SMS
Call
16, 8%

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 84,44% select
Face to Face, violet color show 16,8% select SMS and light yellow show 90,48%
select call.
Q.9: Do you think that due to excessive use of mobile we are going towards
isolation?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know

17, 17%
yes
No
22, 22% 61, 61% Don't Know

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 61,61% select
Yes excessive use of mobile we are going towards isolation, violet color show
22,22% select No and light yellow show 17,17% select Don’t Know.
Q.10: Do you think that our grand parents were more honest and involved in
their relations than us?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know

6, 6%
13, 13% yes
No
Don't Know
81, 81%

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 81,81% select
Yes our grand parents were more honest and involved in their relations than us,
violet color show 13,13% select No and light yellow show 6,6% select Don’t
Know.
Q.11: Do you think that excessive use of mobile is creating an anxiety factor
among youth?
a) No
b) Yes

23, 23%
yes
No
77, 77%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color show that 77,77%
select Yes excessive use of mobile is creating an anxiety factor among youth and
23,23% select violet color its mean No.

Q.12: Do you think that in near future cell phone will become even more integral
part of our daily lives?
a) Yes
b) No

4, 4%

yes
No
96, 96%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color show that 96,96%
select Yes that in near future cell phone will become even more integral part of
our daily lives and 4,4% select violet color its mean No.
Q.13: Are you in favor that there should be any mobile restriction for a child
until unless he/she reaches to the age of adultery?
a) Yes
b) No

23, 23%
yes
No
77, 77%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color show 77,77% select
Yes and 23,23% select violet color its mean No.

Q.14: How much amount do you spend to fulfill your cell phone expenses in a
month?
a) Rs.500-Rs.1000
b) Rs.1000-Rs.2000
c) Rs.2000-Rs.3000

8, 8%
17, 17% Rs.500-Rs.1000
Rs.1000-Rs.2000
75, 75% Rs.2000-Rs.3000

In The above pie chart three colors are shown pale blue color show 75,75% select
Rs.500-1000, violet color show 17,17% select Rs.1000-2000 and light yellow show
8,8% select 2000-3000.
Q.15: Do you think due to cell phone crime ratio is increasing day by day?
a) Yes
b) No

13, 13%
yes
No
87, 87%

In The above pie chart two colors are shown pale blue color show 87,87% select
Yes due to cell phone crime ratio is increasing day by day and 13,13% select
violet color its mean No.
PIMSAT

CONCLUSION

The basis of our research is the hypothesis that is whether the Cell phone
advertisements on TV channels are provoking the increase of cell phone usage
and due to the excessive and unlimited use of cell phones, our traditional culture
which is based on social interaction, is in threat or not?. For testing this
hypothesis we have conducted 50 surveys from different students on the basis of
survey's results we concluded that our hypothesis is correct. Out of 100%
students 62% students answered that through media advertisements they get to
know about the mobile service packages and out of 100% students 70,70%
students select Yes use of short English in SMS our spelling mistakes are
increasing, out of 100% students 70,70% students select meet friends & family
members Daily, 17,17% students select meet friends & family members Weekly
and 13,13% students select meet friends & family members Monthly. Out of
100% students 96,96% students select Yes that in near future cell phone will
become even more integral part of our daily lives and 4,4% students select No
cell phone will not become even more integral part of our daily lives. out of
100% students 81,81% students select Yes our grand parents were more honest
and involved in their relations than us, out of 100% students 87,87% students
select Yes due to cell phone crime ratio is increasing day by day out of 100%
students 77,77% students select Yes excessive use of mobile is creating an anxiety
factor among youth out of 100% students 61% students gave the opinion that
our youth is going towards isolation due to excessive usage of cell phone.

SUGGESTIONS

We suggest that Government should take positive steps to control and stop this
sedition which is expanding day by day. According to our research out of 100%
students 84% students are in favor that there should be some age restriction in
use of mobile for the children until or unless they reach the age of adultery. Due
to limited time and sources our research is conducted on the limited scale but if it
would be conducted on large scale with the sincere participation of several
Government Departments then it may provide better and more powerful
suggestions for the solution of this sedition and after taking a deep breath, we
come to a this point research was a great experience to us, it seems to like us a
marathon race first, but when we put our mind in it we analyze and explore so
many important things about research. This type of research is necessary for the
students of business in the academic life to give them a challenging task, to polish
them, to give them self awareness, to get closest to the real world experience and
more commonly to face the difficulties and problems that a research person
faced. Your contribution has provided us important information which is very
helpful to draw youth’s attention towards this harmful device.
PIMSAT

FUTURE SCOPE

In our research we have observed that media is cultivating our culture according
to the agenda of the telecom companies. Recently an advertisement of the U-fone
was on airing on T.V. In it two characters were acting as a husband and wife.
The situation of the scene was quarrel between them on any subject matter but
the weird thing of this advertisement is that they were fighting through text
messages. May be this act of weirdness is not be implemented affectively in
present scenario but we can predict that with the passage of time it will defiantly
affect the masses.

Our research is conducted on a small scale due to the limitations of time and
sources and due to these bound resources we have just covered one aspect of cell
phone and that is SMS services. For further research we recommend other
researcher to work on other grounds of cell phones.

Related Interests