Impacts of ICT To Health and Environment

1
Impacts of Information and Communication Technology
to Health and Environment
By
Md. Mahbubur Rahman

B.Sc. Engineering in Computer Science and Engineering,
Patuakhali Science and Technology University. Bangladesh.
Lecturer, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
ISTT, National University, Bangladesh.
Email: mahbub_cse89@yahoo.com
23 November, 2011
Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

2
Acknowledgement
In the name of Almighty Allah (tala), the Merciful, the creator of universe. All praises are due to him who enabled
me to complete this study.
I express my sense of gratitude to Golam Md. Muradul Bashir , Assistant professor of Computer and
Communication Engineering department , Patuakhali Science And Technology University, for his guidance ,
valuable suggestions and encouragement without which the success of this thesis could not be achieved.
I would like to convey their sincere and heartiest thanks to all the teacher of Computer Science and Engineering
Faculty, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, for their valuable suggestions.
There is a special thanks to Brinty Rahman who support me and inspire me to do something better as like this
work.
Author

3
This is dedicated to my Parents Md.Moqbul Howlader & Rezia Begum.
-Md.Mahbubur Rahman

4
Abstract
Information and communication Technology plays an important part of our modern life. The globalization
of the world‟s economies greatly enhances the value of information. The modern life we cannot think us
without information and communication technology. The Recent growth of ICT has been astounding.
Now we are able to communicate at lightning speed, by using computers, facsimiles and mobile phones.
The major industrial economies have been transformed into information based service economics in
which knowledge and information become the key ingredients in creating wealth.ICT became a crucial
tool in all aspects of our life , in education , business , industry, medical diagnosis and treatment,
transportation , defense and in protecting man and environment. A country‟s ability to manage and use
ICT will be the single determinant of its rate of development. As usual every development has a price,
and the price of the progress in the amazing, fast, ever-evolving communications and Information
Technologies might be negative Impacts on health and Environment , the electromagnetic radiation
associated with equipment use, Equipment waste disposal. There is a word says “Nothing in the world is
fully develop for human help”. Electromagnetic field is used by several communications and information
technological device for core design. It has many bad effects to the human health and to environmental.
The ICT equipment that manes e-waste which is another great threat to the environment and health. The
electromagnetic field and equipment waste have great impact to agriculture and food production. In
modern times wireless communication such as mobile phone, and other device do many unseen impact
to heath and environments. Many Diseases are formed by it so in modern time it is called the Stupid
economy. Many standards are following now by NCRP, IEEE, ICNIRP, ANSI, FCC, WHO. So according
to the rules and regulation of this organization if we design a product and assign a safety frequency we
may save us slightly from a great danger.

5
Table of Content
Chapter Title Page
Title Page 1
Acknowledgement 2
Dedication 3
Abstract 4
Table of Content 5-9
List of Figures 10-11
List of Tables 12
Chapter 1. Information and Communication Technology
1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………13

1.2 Information and communications technology……………………………………………………………13-14
1.3 Information and Communication technologies for Development……………………………………...14-15
1.4 The Impacts of ICT…………………………………………………………………………………………15
1.5 ICT Associate Parts
1.5.1 Electric Power…………………………………………………………………………………………16-17
1.5.2 Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)……………………………………………………………………..17-18
1.5.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum…………………………………………………………………………..18-19
1.5.4 ICT Equipment………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Chapter 2. Electromagnetic Fields from Major Electrical Technologies
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………20
2.2 History……………………………………………………………………………………20-22
2.3 Sources of EMF

6
2.3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..22-23
2.3.2 Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields)
2.3.2.1 Sources and distribution of exposure in the population………………………………………23
2.3.2.2 Sources operated close to the human body……………………………………………………23-24
2.3.2.3 Sources operated far away from the human body…………………………………………….24-25
2.3.2.4 Medical applications………………………………………………………………………………25-26
2.4 EMFs in your Community ………………………………………………………………………………….26-27
2.4.1 EMFs at Home……………………………………………………………………………………….27-28
2.4.2 EMFs at Work………………………………………………………………………………………..28-29
2.5 Radio Frequency and Microwave EMFs…………………………………………………………………29
2.6 Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields)………………………………………………………………………29-30
2.6.1 Intermediate Frequency Fields (IF fields)……………………………………………………………...30
2.6.2 Extremely low frequency fields (ELF fields)…………………………………………………………...30-31
2.7 Environmental Exposures from Major Technologies……………………………………………………32-37
2.8 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………...37-38
Chapter 3. Biological Interaction Mechanisms
3.1 Introduction ........................... …………………………………………………………………………..39-40

3.2 Biological Interaction Mechanisms………………………………………………………………………..40-50
3.3 Symptoms…………………………………………………………………………………………………...50-53
Chapter 4. Environmental Impact of Electromagnetic Fields
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………54
4.2 Ecosystem Threats…………………………………………………………………………………………54-55
4.2.1 Effects on electrically and magnetically sensitive animals………………………………………55-56
4.2.2 Effects on plants under controlled laboratory conditions………………………………………...56
4.2.3 Radio Waves Hurt Tree Growth……………………………………………………………………57-58
4.3 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………..58

7
Chapter 5. Harmful health effects for using mobile phones or Living near base
stations
5.1 Introduction ........................... …………………………………………………………………………59-60

5.2 Mobile phones………………………………………………………………………………………………60-62
5.3 Mobile phone use
5.3.1 Exposure characteristics of mobile phones……………………………………………………….62-63
5.3.2 Exposure characteristics of phone masts…………………………………………………………63-64
5.3.3 Health concerns of mobile phones in general…………………………………………………….64
5.3.4 Health concerns of mobile phones and cancer……………………………………………………64
5.3.5 Health concerns of mobile phones and other health risks……………………………………….65
5.3.6 Health concerns - phone masts in general………………………………………………………..65
5.3.7 Health concerns of phone masts and cancer……………………………………………………..65-66
5.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………66
5.5 Problem arise by Children use the mobile phones and phone masts be Located where children gather
5.5.1 Children and Mobile phone…………………………………………………………………………..66-69
5.5.2 Children and Mobile phone –Discussion……………………………………………………………69
5.5.3 Children and base stations…………………………………………………………………………..69-70
5.5.4 Children and base stations – Discussion…………………………………………………………..70
Chapter 6. Health and environmental impacts of disposing equipment’s waste
6.1 Introduction ........................... ………………………………………………………………………….71-72

6.2 Scientific measurements and reports…………………………………………………………………….72-74
6.3 Risks related to some e-toxics found in computers……………………………………………………..74-75
6.4 The Hazards of Incinerating Computer Junk………………………………………………………….....76
6.5 The Hazards of Land filling Computer Junk…………………………………………………………...…76-77
6.6 The Hazards of Recycling Computer Junk…………………………………………………………..…..77

8
Chapter 7. Impact of ICT in Agriculture and Food Production
7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………78
7.2 Effects on plants under controlled laboratory conditions…………………………………………….…78
7.3 Crop performance……………………………………………………………………………………….….78-79
7.4 Effects on honeybees……………………………………………………………………………………....79
7.5 Effects on animals…………………………………………………………………………………………..79

7.6 Effect of ICT in coastal area of Bangladesh……………………………………………………………...80
Chapter 8. Present status of expert opinion on EMF health effects
8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..81
8.2 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 1996……………………………………………..81
8.3 National Cancer Institute Report in 1997………………………………………………………………...82
8.4 The World Health Organization review in 1998………………………………………………………….82
8.5 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 1999…………………………………………….82-83
8.6 The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences review in 1999…………………………….83
8.7 Health Canada has provided the following statement on EMF (December 1999)…………………..83
8.8 The Ministry of Health of the government of the province of British Columbia in Canada has concluded that
(March 2000)…………………………………………………………………………………………………….83
8.9 The American Cancer Society (ACS) conclusions on EMF are……………………………………….84
8.10 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields………….84-86
8.11 How the EHS problem is dealt with in Sweden…………………………………………………..……86
Chapter 9: Step in the right direction

9.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..87
9.2 Safety Guidelines Will Meet By Mobile Phone Base Station Antenna………………………………..87
9.3 Organized Responsibility…………………………………………………………………………………..87-88
9.4 Implementation of standards……………………………………………………………………………....88

9
9.5 Safety assured when new technologies are introduced before their health effects assessed…….88-89
9.6 Irish authorities Directions………………………………………………………………………………..89-91
9.7 Other authorities
Participation……………………………………………………………………………………………..……….91
9.8 The ICNIRP guidelines apply only to short-term exposure……………………………………............91-93
9.9 Precautionary measurement is adopted in relation to EMF exposure
9.9.1 Precautionary Principle………………………………………………………………………………93-94
9.9.2 When the precautionary approach should be used……………………………………………....94
9.9.3 Reasons for applying a precautionary approach to EMF………………………………………..94-95
9.9.4 Expert Group view on precautionary measurements to EMF……………………………………95-96
9.9.5 Drawbacks to precautionary policies……………………………………………………………….96
9.10 Planning Laws concerning phone masts have regard to public health and safety regarding EMF exposure
9.10.1 Present planning arrangements…………………………………………………………………….97
9.10.2 Issues that concern the public………………………………………………………………………97-99
9.10.3 The ICNIRP guidelines to short-term exposure………………………………………………......99-100
9.10.4 Thermal and non-thermal effects………………………………………………………………….......100
9.11 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………….100
9.12 Consultation………………………………………………………………………………………………..101
Chapter 10: Conclusion and Future Work
10.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….102
10.2 Future Work………………………………………………………………………………………………..102
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………102-104

10
List of Figure
Figure Title Page
1.1 World wide communication Networks 14
1.2 Power lines an important so0urce of Electrical low Frequency 16
1.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum. 18

2.1 EMFs in your Community 26
2.2 The Electromagnetic Spectrum using device 31
2.3 High Voltage Power line 33
3.1 Conductivity of different tissues according to voltage 39
3.2 Biological Interaction Mechanism 41
3.3 Blood – Brain barrier 42
3.4 DNA Chain deflection 44
3.5 Photo of a one day baby wearing RFID tag 50
4.1 Ecosystem 54
4.2 Aquascape Ecosystem 55
5.1 Cell Phone and Base station 59
5.2 Using Mobile Phone 61
5.3 Mobile phone base station 62
6.1 ICT a part of the problem 71

11
6.2 Life cycle Assessment Study 72
6.3 Extraction of material Normal process (burning). 76
6.4 Extraction of material scientific process 77
7.1 Farmer shows empty grain of paddy field 80

12
List of Tables
Table Name Page
2.1 Typical Source of Electromagnetic Field 23
5.1 Typical mobile phone SAR 63
6.1 Typical desktop computer‟s equipments impacts and recycling efficiency 73-74

13
Chapter 1
Information and Communication Technology
1.1 Introduction
Information and communications technology (ICT) plays an important role in modern society. In our modern life
we cannot think of our life without Information and communications technology. As usually it has become that
cradle to grave. The term ICT is now also used to refer to the merging (convergence) of audio-visual and
telephone networks with computer networks through a single cabling or link system. There are large economic
incentives (huge cost savings due to elimination of the telephone network) to merge the audio-visual, building
management and telephone network with the computer network system using a single unified system of cabling,
signal distribution and management. This in turn has spurred the growth of organizations with the term ICT in
their names to indicate their specialization in the process of merging the different network systems.
1.2 Information and communications technology
Information and communications technology usually abbreviated as ICT, is often used as an extended synonym
for information technology (IT), but is usually a more general term that stresses the role of unified
communications and the integration of telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals), computers,
middleware as well as necessary software, storage- and audio-visual systems, which enable users to create,
access, store, transmit, and manipulate information. In other words, ICT consists of IT as well as
telecommunication, broadcast media, all types of audio and video processing and transmission and network
based control and monitoring functions. The expression was first used in 1997 in a report by Dennis Stevenson
to the UK government and promoted by the new National Curriculum documents for the UK in 2000.The ICT
devices are those use for information and communication processing and transformation.
A good way to think about ICT is to consider all the uses of digital technology that already exist to help
individuals, businesses and organizations use information. ICT covers any product that will store, retrieve,
manipulate, transmit or receive information electronically in a digital form. For example, personal computers,
digital television, email, robots. So ICT is concerned with the storage, retrieval, manipulation, transmission or
receipt of digital data. Importantly, it is also concerned with the way these different uses can work with each
14
other. In business, ICT is often categorized into two broad types of product as the traditional computer-
based technologies and the more recent, and fast-growing range of digital communication technologies which
allow people and organizations to communicate and share information digitally.
1.3 Information and Communication technologies for Development
Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is a general term referring to the
application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) within the fields of socioeconomic
development, international development and human rights. The basic hypothesis behind the approach is that
more and better information and communication furthers the development of a society (be this to improve
income, education, health, security, or any other aspect of human development). In our times, the most tangible
and effective way to improve information and communication flows in a society consists in fostering ICT, ergo
ICT4D.
The dominant term used in this field is "ICT4D". Alternatives include ICTD ICT4Dev and informatics. The world
wide communicational networks established that have extraordinary advantages for human community.
Figure 1.1: World wide communication Networks.
ICTD (Information and Communication Technologies and Development) is the application of technological
solutions to the problems of the developing world. In theory, it is differentiated from Information and
Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D). ICT4D focuses on using digital technology to deliver
specific development goals (most notably the Millennium Development Goals). ICTD looks much more broadly at

15
use of ICTs in developing countries. This is a difference that is rarely understood or used in practice.
There is a - somewhat loose - community of researchers that has grown up around the annual ICT4D
conferences, the latter of which took place in London, England. The main feature of this community is its
integration of both technical and social science researchers working in the field. The concept of ICT4D can be
interpreted as dealing with disadvantaged populations anywhere in the world, but is more typically associated
with applications in developing countries. It concerns itself with directly applying information technology
approaches to poverty reduction. ICTs can be applied either in the direct sense, wherein their use directly
benefits the disadvantaged population, or in an indirect sense, wherein the ICTs assist aid organizations or non-
governmental organizations or governments or businesses in order to improve general socio-economic
conditions.
1.4 The Impacts of ICT
ICT have great impact to health and environments as usual every development has a price, and the price of the
progress in the amazing, fast, ever-evolving communications and Information Technologies might be negative
Impacts on health and environment that result from:
The electromagnetic radiation associated with equipment use

Equipment waste disposal
Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together through space. All
electromagnetic radiation can be classified by frequency from the extremely low to extremely high frequencies.
Extremely high frequency radiation such as Ultraviolet (UV) and X-rays is called “Ionizing Radiation” because it
is powerful enough to effect changes in the atoms of matter it strikes, by breaking chemical bonds (ionization) ,
thus altering their chemical and biological nature . Electromagnetic radiation at those frequencies below the UV
band is generally classified as “Non-Ionizing Radiation” because they typically lack the energy to effect changes
in atomic structure. Electromagnetic waves may produce biological effects which may sometimes, but not
always, lead to adverse health effects. A biological effect occurs when exposure to electromagnetic waves
causes some noticeable or detectable physiological change in a biological system. An adverse health effect
occurs when the biological effect is outside the normal range for the body to compensate, and thus leads to
some detrimental health condition.

16
1.5 ICT Associate Parts
1.5.1 Electric Power
In order to understand EMFs that are found everywhere electricity is in use, we need to have a basic
understanding of electric power. The electrical power system is a large power grid, which crosses the country
and provides us with energy to light our homes and run appliances.
Figure 1.2: Power lines an important so0urce of Electrical low Frequency.
The electrical power system has power lines to carry current (movement of electrons or the electrical charge
through the line) and transformers to change its voltage (electrical force that causes current in a line or potential
amount of electrical energy in a line). Electric power is generated in power plants that are usually located in rural
areas. Step-up transformers boost voltages (up to 765 Kv) so that current can be carried long distances.
Transmission lines, or high voltage power lines, efficiently carry electric power over long distances to substations
near user communities. (The transmission lines are usually mounted on 50-meter high metal structures with a
space age look to them.) Substations and step-down transformers reduce voltages to levels needed by
consumers. Utilities use lower voltage distribution lines (<50 Kv) to bring power from substations to our homes
and businesses. For residential customers, the voltage is further reduced to 120/240 volts once the power
reaches its destination. In general, transmission lines handle lower voltages and currents than distribution lines
except during peak power use. During peak power use, the amount of current traveling over distribution lines

17
can actually be as high as the current in a transmission line.
As demand for electricity continues to grow, there has been an increase in both the number and length of power
lines crossing the country. According to the Department of Energy, in 1992, there were 350,000 miles of
transmission lines and 2 million miles of distribution lines in the U.S.
In the U.S., we have a 60-Hertz (Hz) Alternating Current (AC) power system. A 60 Hz AC means that the
electrical current that runs through the power lines and wall wiring doesn't just flow in one direction – it alternates
back and forth at a rate of 60 cycles per second.(The current in batteries flows in a single direction, from the
batteries to the appliance, so it is called Direct Current, or DC.) The 60 Hz AC system and all appliances that run
on it produce 60 Hz EMF. At this frequency, electromagnetic fields are known as Extremely Low Frequency
(ELF) EMF. These AC fields induce weak electrical currents in conducting objects, including humans. The cells
in living organisms naturally maintain an electric charge across their membranes that are essential to the normal
functioning of the human tissue. These cells are extremely sensitive to very weak electromagnetic fields and this
is a reason why there is a potential for EMFs to cause biological effects.
1.5.2 Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
Electromagnetic radiation is energy radiated in the form of a wave caused by an electric field interacting
with a magnetic field that is produced when electrical charges are accelerated. Normally, electric and magnetic
fields occur together and both electric and magnetic field weaken with increasing distance from the source. Yet,
electric and magnetic fields are different in important ways and are known to have different effects on living
things. When EMFs interact with living things, the electric and magnetic fields separate and affect organisms
separately. Although electric fields are present whether an appliance is on or off, a magnetic field will disappear
as soon as the appliance is turned off. Whereas electric fields can be easily shielded or weakened by conducting
objects such as buildings, trees, and human skin, magnetic fields cannot. Magnetic fields are difficult to weaken
because they are able to pass through anything that doesn't contain a high degree of iron. This difference is
critical because it is believed that the dangers of EMFs come from their magnetic field component and not from
the electric fields. The human body is a very good conductor. Therefore, when you stand in an electromagnetic
field, you become an antenna and are not even aware of it.
In our everyday life, we are exposed to electromagnetic fields all the time without knowing it. The strength of the
fields varies throughout the day, indoors and outdoors.
“Exposures to magnetic fields can vary widely throughout the day, as this metered log of the author's activities
one day last month illustrates. From midnight to 7 a.m., cyclic changes in fields at the head of a second-floor bed
suggest a poorly wired thermostat or pump that induces spikes as the boiler in the basement turns on and off.
Use of kitchen appliances from 7 to 7:30 a.m. caused small surges. Similar fluctuations between 7:30 and 8:15
depict fields as the author drove her daughter to school. Off-the-chart peaks shortly thereafter reflect commuting
on the electric subway system. The 1- to 2-mG background fields from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. were encountered at the
18
office computer. Photocopying generated an 11 a.m. spike. The 5- to 8-mG exposures from 1 to 3 p.m.
occurred during a staff party at a nearby restaurant, and the erratic spikes over the succeeding 4 hours depict
fields in local shops, on the subway, and while driving the family car. Spikes between 10:30 and 11:30 p.m. took
place while cleaning the kitchen, turning on the dishwasher, and changing CDs on the stereo.”
1.5.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum
All electromagnetic radiation is classified by wavelength and frequency in the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
The frequencies are expressed in cycles per second (i.e. Hz). See figure below.
Figure 1.3: Electromagnetic Spectrum.

19
All electromagnetic radiation can be classified as ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The conventional paradigm
holds that ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, causes biological effects through the breaking of molecular bonds,
which can damage genetic material such as DNA and non-ionizing radiation can cause effects when the
intensity is sufficient to cause heating or thermal effects. The thermal/non-thermal dividing line is used as the
basis for present safety standards of electromagnetic radiation. This would mean that EMFs from things such as
power lines and cellular phones are safe and have no effect as long as they don‟t heat you up.
Yet, it is now known that weak electromagnetic fields (weak meaning non-ionizing and below thermal levels) can
cause changes in living things. For example, recall that ELF power line AC fields induce weak electrical currents
in conducting objects, such as humans and animals. Also, microwave radiation is also known to be dangerous
because of its non-thermal effects that produce biological changes. Microwave radiation is emitted by broadcast
radio and TV transmissions, radar, microwave ovens, and cellular phones to name just a few.
1.5.4 ICT Equipment
Now a day‟s different device are used for information and communication technology. These devices have a
fixed lifetime. When these devices are expired date or damaged they are thrown to the environments in most of
the time. The ICT devices are made by different toxic chemical substance so the toxicity of these substances is
spread into the environments and later they make bad effects to the human health and environments .The
computer devices, Telecommunication devices etc are in this type.

20
Chapter 2
Electromagnetic Fields from Major Electrical Technologies
2.1 Introduction
Electromagnetic radiation or electromagnetic fields, commonly known as EMFs, are all around us. EMFs are
found everywhere that electricity is in use and around any object that has an electric charge. EMFs are invisible
lines of force that surround all electrical devices and wiring. Any time an electric current runs through a wire or
an appliance, it produces an EMF. Electromagnetic radiation from Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), Radio
Frequency (RF), and Microwave Frequency emissions are harmful to all living things.
Before humans harnessed electricity, the only electromagnetic radiation we were exposed to came from the
forces of nature, from gamma rays and sunlight to the magnetic field of the earth. Many of today‟s technological
applications use or produce electromagnetic energy.
For the last century, technology has been a blessing to all human beings. The newly developed innovations and
inventions have reduced the time needed to accomplish our goals and drastically improved the overall quality of
our lives. Familiar examples include electrical lighting and appliances, computers, computer monitors, and
microwave ovens, radios, TVs, and cellular phones, broadcast stations, surveillance systems and
communications satellites.
2.2 History
Many writers and even researchers have already embraced the enormous and wonderful effects of this
technology on our lives. The first warning of the dangers of this technology occurred in 1972 when the Soviet
Union reported strange health effects in switchyard workers who were regularly exposed to high levels of EMF.
Since then, scientists have been questioning whether this technology is causing more harm than benefits, not
only for humans, but also for every living thing including animals and plants. This is because of the association
of electromagnetic fields with increased behavioral changes and health problems such as epilepsy, leukemia,
cancer, brain tumors, and other serious disorders. Many scientists and physicians suggest a link between these
disorders and long-term exposure to EMF.

21
There has long been a scientific debate amongst researchers and it seems that for every study, which
supports this link, there is an equally contrary finding in another study. Yet, in a 1989 report to the Congressional
Office of Technology Assessment, Dr. Janet Healer stated: “Studies over the last fifteen years have
demonstrated unequivocally that under certain circumstances, the membranes of cells can be sensitive to even
fairly weak externally imposed low frequency electromagnetic fields. Extremely small signals can trigger major
biochemical responses critical to the functioning of the cell.” Enough evidence has been reported to date to at
least justify further investigation into the possible health effects of the electromagnetic radiation.
Yet, the government, electric utility and communications industry, and manufacturers maintain that there‟s not
enough evidence to make them take action. This is the same thing that was about asbestos for years until it was
proven to be harmful. Tobacco companies still insist that smoking does not cause cancer. (Is this still true?) Lead
manufacturers denied that lead added to paint was a hazard to children and it took fifty years before it was
removed from paint and longer before it was removed from gasoline. The utility and communications industry are
wealthy and powerful organizations and there is a danger that scientists who accept funds from them will have
their public position biased by their financial support.
In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency charged with warning the public about
health problems in the environment, conducted a comprehensive review of available EMF studies and published
a report recommendation that power line ELF‟s be declared a probable carcinogen, and radio waves and
microwaves be declared possible carcinogens. The White house and the Air Force declared that the report
should not be published on grounds of national security and that it would alarm the public. The report was put on
hold until the administration of the EPA changed the conclusions to say that there was no proven effect and the
EPA has never officially released the report in its final form. Time magazine reported, “The EPA has put forward
what amounts to the most serious government warning to date. The agency tentatively concluded that scientific
evidence „suggests a causal link‟ between extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and leukemia,
lymphoma, and brain cancer … (the report) does identify the common 60 Hz magnetic fields as a possible, but
not proven, cause of cancer in humans.”
Most recently, the price of technological progress has grown due to the expansion of the wireless
communications industry and society‟s additional exposure to this new source of EMF. As the wireless
communications industry further expands, the electromagnetic signature of the world is being altered with no
clear understanding of the implications to humans and other species.
Millions of people are at risk and a lot of people can suffer or die before it‟s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
that electromagnetic radiation is truly dangerous. Until the EMFs are exonerated, avoidance of them is a
reasonable policy. We advocate what has been termed “prudent avoidance”, “the concept of protecting yourself

22
from exposures that is probably but not definitely harmful, if the actions required are neither
unreasonably expensive nor disruptive.”
This book focuses on the possible hazardous health effects of EMF, its sources, how to measure and detect the
EMF, avoidance of EMF, and the managerial impacts on businesses and manufacturers in dealing with the
hazards introduced by technological innovations and inventions.
2.3 Sources of EMF
2.3.1 Introduction
The purpose of the opinion is to update the Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE)
opinion of 2001 with respect to whether or not exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is a cause of disease or
other health effects and the purpose is not to provide a general review on electromagnetic fields and health.
Recommendations regarding exposure guidelines or other risk management tools, including application of the
precautionary principle are beyond the scope of the opinion. The methods that were used for the preparation of
the opinion are explained below.
The objective of this section is to establish the scientific rationale that is necessary in order to provide an opinion
in response to the request to the Committee, in particular to update the CSTEE opinion of 30 October 2001. This
section therefore summarizes what was known at the time of the 2001 Opinion, reviews the scientific data that
have been published after 2001, and assesses to what extent these new data affect previous conclusions.
Following the Committee‟s general principles, only studies published in peer reviewed journals have been
considered. The section is divided into four sub-sections according to frequency (f) range: radio frequency (RF)
(100 kHz < f ≤ 300 GHz), intermediate frequency (IF) (300 Hz < f ≤ 100 kHz), extremely low frequency (ELF) (0<
f ≤ 300 Hz), and static (0 Hz) (only static magnetic fields are considered in this opinion). These frequency ranges
are discussed in order of decreasing frequency, RF, IF, ELF, and static. For each frequency range the review
begins with a description of sources and exposure to the population. This is followed, for each frequency range,
by a discussion that is organized according to outcome. For each outcome relevant human, in vivo, and in vitro
data are covered. It is well recognized that there are established biophysical mechanisms that can lead to health
effects as a consequence of exposure to sufficiently strong fields. For frequencies up to, say, 100 kHz the
mechanism is stimulation of nerve and muscle cells due to induced currents and, for higher frequencies, tissue
heating is the main mechanism. These mechanisms lead to acute effects. Existing exposure guidelines, such as
those issued by ICNIRP, protect against these effects. The current issue is the possibility that health effects
occur at exposure levels below those where the established mechanisms play a role and in particular as effects
of long term exposure at low level. No further consideration is given to thermal effects. Table 1 below illustrates
some typical artificial sources of electromagnetic fields with frequency and intensity. Natural sources like the
magnetic field of the earth are not included. Note, however, that big variations occur.
23
Table 2.1 :Typical mSource of Electromagnetic Field.
2.3.2 Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields)

2.3.2.1 Sources and distribution of exposure in the population
Nowadays the use of RF sources is widespread in our society. Prominent examples are mobile communication,
broadcasting or medical and industrial applications. Information on emissions arising from RF sources is often
available and can be used for compliance assessment or similar applications such as in-situ measurements. It
has to be taken into account that information on the exposure of individual persons is scarce; such information is
mainly needed for epidemiological studies, there is therefore a need to optimize methodology to assess
individual exposure, e.g. by using and further developing existing dosimeters. The existing RF sources are
operated in different frequency bands and can be subdivided in several categories.
2.3.2.2 Sources operated close to the human body

Many devices of this type are mobile RF transmitters. One of the examples is mobile phones; more than 2 billion
people are using mobile phones worldwide. The most common mobile communication technologies in Europe
are the digital technologies GSM 900, GSM 1800 and UMTS, analogue technologies are nowadays almost not in
use any longer in Europe. Mobile phone use is common in Europe and the proportion of users can reach values
of 80 % or more. Before mobile phones can be brought into the European market they have to show compliance
with the requirements of European directives, i.e., it has to be shown that the limits for the amount of power
absorbed in the human body are not exceeded. Standardized methods specified by the European Committee for
Electrical Standardization (CENELEC) are used to test mobile phones in Europe. The limit for mobile phone use
is the specific absorption rate (SAR) of 2 W/kg for the human head. Mobile phones are tested under worst case
conditions, i.e. at the highest power level, e.g., 2 W peak powers corresponding to 250 mW maximum time
averaged transmitted power for GSM at 900 MHz. Maximum local SAR values averaged over 10 gram of tissue
24
range typically between 0.2 and 1.5 W/kg, depending on the type of mobile phone. It has to be taken into
account that the emitted power is often orders of magnitude lower than the maximum power leading to much
lower exposure due to power control and discontinuous transmission mode for GSM and UMTS phones. The
power control of a GSM phone automatically reduces the emitted power by up to a factor of 1,000 for GSM and
about 100.000.000 for UMTS if the intensity is not needed for stable transmission. No exposure occurs from a
mobile phone being switched off. Phones operated in the standby mode cause typically much lower exposure
compared to mobile phones operated with maximum power, but an accurate figure for this lower exposure
depends on the exact details of the transmission path to base stations and on the traffic requested by the
communication protocol and by incoming / outgoing SMS. In addition to mobile phones, other wireless
applications like cordless phones, e.g. DECT or WLAN systems are very common. Due to the fact that they are
usually operated with lower output power compared to mobile phones the exposure is typically below the level of
mobile phones. The maximum time averaged power level of a DECT base station is 250 mW (worst case for a
professional application handling communication with 25 handsets in parallel, a typical household application
communicating with one handset has a time averaged power of 10 mW), for a DECT handset 10mW. The peak
value of a WLAN
terminal is 200 mW, however the averaged power depends on the traffic and is usually considerable lower. The
exposure from such systems is therefore typically below that of mobile phones, however under certain
circumstances, e.g. closeness to WLAN access points, exposure due to WLAN or DECT systems can become
superior compared to the exposure from GSM or UMTS mobile phones. For example, close to a WLAN system
exposure is typically below 0.5 mW/m². Anti-theft devices have become more and more common during recent
years. They are typically operated at the exits of shops or similar areas to prevent theft of goods. Some of the
existing systems are operated in the RF range; the exposure depends on the type of system and is, as long as
the systems are operated according to the manufacturer‟s requirements, below the exposure limits. Several
industrial appliances are operated in the RF and microwave range, for example for heating (e.g. RF sealers) or
maintenance of broadcasting stations. The exposure of the worker operating such systems can reach values
close or even above the limits of the Directive 2004/40/EC.
2.3.2.3 Sources operated far away from the human body
Such sources are typically fixed installed RF transmitters. An example is base stations that are an essential part
of mobile communication networks necessary to establish the link between the mobile telephone and the rest of
the network. In most European countries, base stations have became ubiquitous to guarantee connectivity in
large areas of the respective countries; e.g., 18,000 base stations are operated in Austria. The so called
reference level for the exposure of the general population at 900 MHz, an important frequency for mobile
communication given in the European Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC is 4.5 W/m². This reference level
is given as an example, it has to be taken into account that the reference levels are frequency dependent and
that other limits have to be applied at other frequencies. The range of exposure of the general population due to

25
GSM signals is typically between some hundred nW/m² and some tens of mW/m². The reasons for this
large variation are both technical and environmental factors including distance. For UMTS, the available
measurements are limited and so far the traffic is rather low compared to GSM. Values slightly over 1 mW/m²
have been measured in a few cases, while minimum levels are a few hundred nW/m². Other important RF
sources are broadcasting systems (AM and FM). The maximum values measured in areas accessible for the
public are typically below 10 mW/m². Close to the fences of very powerful transmitters, exposure of about 300
mW/m² can be expected in some cases. Looking at the new digital TV technology (DVBT), exposures between
around 40 mW/m² and 0.003 mW/m² were registered in an Austrian study. The range of exposure is similar
compared to analogue TV systems. However, the digital systems require more transmitters than the older
analogue systems therefore somewhat higher average exposure levels can be expected. In some countries
digital audio broadcasting systems are already in operation. Other examples of sources relevant for far field
exposure of the general population are civil and military radar systems, private mobile radio systems, or new
technologies like WiMAX.
2.3.2.4 Medical applications

Several medical applications use electromagnetic fields in the RF range. Therapeutic applications such as soft
tissue healing appliances, hyperthermia for cancer treatment, or diathermy expose the patient well above the
recommended limit values to achieve the intended biological effects. These include heating of tissue (analgetic
applications) or burning cells (to kill cancer cells). In these cases exposure of therapists or other medical
personnel needs to be controlled to avoid that their exposure exceeds the exposure limit
values foreseen by Directive 2004/40/EC for occupational exposure. Diagnostic applications, like magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), are allowed to exceed the basic restrictions of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC
as there is a benefit for the patient. Usual frequencies are those allowed for industrial, scientific, and medical
applications similar to most industrial sources: 27 MHz, 433 MHz and 2.45 GHz. Magnetic resonance imaging
devices in medical diagnostics use RF fields in addition to static and variable fields. Most actual clinical MRI
devices work at 63 MHz. cells. Proteomic analyses of human endothelial cell lines showed RF fields induced
changes in the expression and hosphorylation state of numerous proteins including the heat shock protein
hsp27.
Free radicals are able to interact with DNA or other cellular components and are involved in many cell regulatory
processes. In leukocytes, physiological activation is associated with the onset of phagocytosis and leads to
increased formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These cells exert a wide variety of functions including the
regulation of the immune response (pro and anti inflammatory processes), scavenging of senescent cells,
phagocytosis of infected or malignant cells, wound healing, repair, and detoxification, but also the generation of
free radicals to kill invading micro-organisms. Each type and source of free radicals enhances important
physiological processes, e.g., signal transduction of various membrane receptors and further immunological
functions. An imbalance between excessive formation of reactive oxygen species and the limited antioxidant
defense, known as oxidative burst (Sies and Cadenas 1985), can cause damage to nucleic acids, membranes,

26
proteins, lipids and polysaccharides (Beckman and Ames 1998). During healthy conditions free radicals
are neutralized by an elaborate defense system. Only a few publications are available describing the capacity of
RF fields to affect free radical dependent processes in cells. In recent studies (Lantow et al. 2006a, Lantow et al.
2006b, Simkó et al. 2006) no increased free radical level was detected. Influences on immune system cells were
investigated in a few studies. No significant effects were observed on intracellular production of interleukin-2 (IL-
2) and interferon (INF) gamma in lymphocytes, IL-1 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha in monocytes, on
immune-relevant genes (IL 1-alpha and beta, IL-2, IL-2-receptor, IL-4, macrophage colony stimulating factor
(MCSF)-receptor, TNF-alpha, TNF-alpha-receptor) (Tuschl et al. 2005, Black and Heynick 2003).
2.4 EMFs in your Community
Power lines fire off (radiate) Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) EMF that vibrate back and forth 60 times per
second. (Because these waves vibrate back and forth at 60 times per second, the same to and from movement
will occur in the brain and body molecules of human beings who are exposed to them.) These magnetic fields
can be particularly strong in houses that are close to high voltage transmission lines and to ordinary high current
distribution lines that are found in every city and town in the U.S. Numerous studies have shown that most high
magnetic fields in houses are produced by nearby power lines.
Figure 2.1: EMFs in your Community

In most communities, the overhead distribution lines are most dangerous to the average person because most
people do not generally come in contact with high voltage transmission lines. Overhead distribution lines are
everywhere, exposing people to fields that can go up to 20 mG during peak usage. Since distribution lines are

27
always strung on only one side of the street, you can avoid these fields completely by crossing the street
and walking on the side without the lines. Burying lines can be very effective in reducing magnetic fields.
It should be noted that there is a concern for homes, schools, and public recreational facilities that are less than
350 feet from high voltage transmission lines. Since communities have grown very rapidly and open land is at a
premium, today we see many homes built with 300 ft of high voltage transmission lines. It is known that 800 ft
from a 765 KV transmission line; the typical magnetic field would be 5 mG. Playgrounds and schools located
near electrical components with high magnetic fields are especially a concern because the developing child is at
a greater danger of biological effects from magnetic field exposure than an adult would be.
Subways and electric trains or buses also produce high magnetic fields, both on and around them. In one study
conducted, a magnetic field reading of 500 mG was obtained on an Amtrak train. Working adults in major
metropolitan areas get most of their exposure, as well as exposure to the highest fields, outside of their homes
and offices during transport.
In addition to these exposures, people in every community are also regularly exposed to radio frequency and
microwave radiation. Some sources of radio frequency and microwave radiation are radio and TV broadcasts,
weather radars, air traffic control systems, and wireless communication transmissions. These sources of EMF
will be addressed in their own section.
2.4.1 EMFs at Home

Numerous studies have shown that most high magnetic fields in houses are produced by nearby power lines. “A
pilot study conducted by Electric Power Research Institute in 1987 showed the primary sources of residential
magnetic fields as: Transmission lines, distribution lines, currents in the residences grounding system, unusual
wiring arrangements in the residence, and appliances.” Therefore, overall magnetic field levels in a home are not
greatly affected by home appliances. However, exposure varies greatly according to personal appliance use.
“In some 98% of U.S. homes, the average strength of magnetic fields, away from appliances ranges from 0.5 to
0.9 mG. Magnetic fields very close to electrical appliances are often stronger than field directly beneath power
lines. However, appliance fields decrease in strength more quickly than do power line fields.
Appliances emit magnetic fields all around them, not just in front. Many large appliances have very high fields in
the back where the motor is located. The magnetic field does not depend on the size of the appliance. The
important thing to remember about appliance fields is that the farther away you get from the source, the lower
they become, until they disappear. According to research, 95% of measured appliance fields one foot away from

28
the source were only 1 mG. There are also great differences in the duration of exposure from various
appliances.
The general rule of thumb is that three feet us a very good safety zone to establish between yourself and
electrical appliances.
The two most dangerous home appliances are the electric blanket and waterbed heaters. The problem with the
electric blanket is that people spend 7 –8 hours a night lying in the magnetic field. The thermostat control on the
electric blanket creates another problem by exposing the user to magnetic field surges. Waterbeds are worse
because their heaters operate yearlong.
Hairdryers are a known source of extremely high fields and have been named as hazardous in research. This
further magnified by daily use and the distance it is held from the head. A wall-mounted hairdryer allows you to
use the hairdryer and stay out of the EMF because it‟s the motor that puts out the EMF.
The kitchen is a likely place for high magnetic fields because a lot of appliances are going at the same time. We
need to decide if we really need all the labor saving devices that are a potential health hazard.
2.4.2 EMFs at Work

Societies are exposed to magnetic fields every day at work. Common sources of magnetic fields at work are
copy machines, fax machines, fluorescent lighting, and computer monitors. The source that raises the most
concern is the computer monitor.
The general population is aware of the health effects of computer use such as eyestrain and headaches. Yet,
there is a possible health risk from exposure to electromagnetic fields released by the computer monitor. These
fields are emitted all around them with most magnetic radiation released from the back and sides of the monitor.
There is great exposure to this EMF because the working population spends a lot of time at their desk with the
computer on.
There are no known products to prevent exposure to this EMF and the U. S. has set no standards for magnetic
fields from computer monitors. The Swedish government, which is usually in the forefront of magnetic field
regulation, has established a manufacturing standard of no more than 2.5 mG at 20 inches. The Swedish
government standard has become the standard in the computer monitor industry worldwide.

29
The federally permitted limit of magnetic fields in the U.S. workplaces is 1000 mG. “The workplace limit is
based on the faulty assumption that only thermal, or heat, effects are important as a potential biological hazard.”
2.5 Radio Frequency and Microwave EMFs
The advancement of technology has allowed society to benefit from the use of radio, TV, and cellular phones.
Due to the rapid growth of technology, we‟re practically surrounded by antennas, towers, and microwave dishes.
The negative impact of all of this technological advancement is suffered by the environment due to the
increasing amount of electromagnetic radiation pollution in the air.
The term “RF” is normally used to represent both Radio frequency (RF) and Microwave (MW) radiation;
microwaves are at the high end of the RF band. Sources of RF radiation are AM and FM transmissions, TV (VHF
and UHF), CB radios, cordless phones, cellular or mobile phones, microwave communications technology,
microwave ovens, air traffic control and weather radars, and satellite communication earth stations.
The closer you are to an antenna, the higher is your potential exposure. Society is continually exposed to a
combination of ambient RF fields from a variety of antennas. According to the EPA, the highest public RF
exposures occur near the base station of broadcast towers and in high-rise buildings in line-of-sight with the
powerful broadcast beams.
Although experts on both sides of the health effects issue agree that more research needs to be conducted,
years of studies have reported dangerous RF EMF effects such as chromosomal damage, increased tumor
growth, immune system disorders, and birth defects.
There is a potential for billions in profits in the RF technology industry as companies maximize their opportunities
that help them capture a competitive advantage. Yet, as society becomes more informed about the possible
health effects of RF technology, the communications industry, and especially the cellular phone industry, is at a
risk of lost profits and lawsuits.
2.6 Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields)
Since the adoption of the 2001 opinion extensive research has been conducted regarding possible health effects
of exposure to low intensity RF fields, including epidemiologic, in vivo, and in vitro research. The balance of
epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk
of brain tumor or acoustic neuroma. For long-term use, data are sparse, and the following conclusions are
30
therefore uncertain and tentative. However, from the available data it does appear that there is no increased
risk for brain tumors in long-term users, with the exception of acoustic neuroma for which there is some evidence
of an association. For diseases other than cancer, very little epidemiologic data are available.
A particular consideration is mobile phone use by children. While no specific evidence exists, children or
adolescents may be more sensitive to RF field exposure than adults. Children of today will also experience a
much higher cumulative exposure than previous generations. To date no epidemiologic studies on children are
available. Observational and provocation studies have failed to provide consistent support for a relation between
RF exposure and neurovegetative symptoms (sometimes referred to as electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity).Studies on neurological effects and reproductive effects has not indicated any health risks at
exposure levels below the ICNIRP-limits established in 1998. Animal studies have not provided evidence that RF
fields could induce cancer, enhance the effects of known carcinogens, or accelerate the development of
transplanted tumors. The open questions include adequacy of the experimental models used and scarcity of
data at high exposure levels. There is no consistent indication from in vitro research that RF fields affect cells at
the nonthermal exposure level. The technical development is very fast and sources of RF field exposure become
increasingly common. Yet, there is a lack of information on individual RF field exposure and the relative
contribution of different sources to the overall exposure. Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on
Human Health In conclusion, no health effect has been consistently demonstrated at exposure levels below the
ICNIRP-limits established in 1998. However, the data base for this evaluation is limited especially for long-term
low-level exposure.
2.6.1 Intermediate Frequency Fields (IF fields)

Experimental and epidemiological data from the IF range are very sparse. Therefore, assessment of acute
health risks in the IF range is currently based on known hazards at lower frequencies and higher frequencies.
Proper evaluation and assessment of possible health effects from long term exposure to IF fields are important
because human exposure to such fields is increasing due to new and emerging technologies.
2.6.2 Extremely low frequency fields (ELF fields)
The previous conclusion that ELF fields are possibly carcinogenic, chiefly based on childhood leukemia results,
is still valid. There is no known mechanism to explain how electromagnetic field exposure may induce leukemia.
The effects have not been replicated in animal studies. The calculations in the previous opinion of the possible
proportion of childhood leukemia cases that might be attributed to ELF fields still hold.
For breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, recent research has indicated that an association is unlikely.
For neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumors, the link to ELF fields remains uncertain. A relation between
ELF fields and symptoms (sometimes referred to as electrical hypersensitivity) has not been demonstrated.

31
Use of large-scale electrical technologies has led to widespread environmental exposures to electromagnetic
fields (EMF) over wide frequency ranges. Dominant sources of human-made fields in the environment are power
lines at extremely low (ELF) frequencies and high powered broadcast transmitters at radiofrequencies (RF), but
many other sources of EMF exist that can produce strong fields in a local environment.
Little has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature on the environmental effects of
electromagnetic fields. Much of the available discussion exists in environmental impact assessments conducted
as a requirement for government approval of projects, or conducted by government agencies involved with
project development. In some cases, governments or industry have supported research programs on
environmental effects of specific technologies. Nevertheless, the scientific research remains very scattered and
difficult to access.
The major focus of this review is possible effects of strong EMF levels produced by large-scale
technologies that operate at high power levels. Apart from the strong fields they often produce in the
environment, large systems often arouse public controversy and for this reason are more likely to have been
subjected to extensive environmental impact assessment. This review excludes environmental effects not
related to EMF, some of which (e.g. air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from generation of electric
power) are major environmental issues in their own right.
This review was motivated by an international seminar entitled “Effects of electromagnetic fields on the living
environment” held in Ismaning, Germany on 4 and 5 October 1999. The World Health Organization (WHO), the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the German Institute for Radiation
Hygiene/Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS/ISH) jointly sponsored this seminar, the fifth in a series
related to electromagnetic fields organized under WHO‟s International EMF Project. While the present review
draws on material presented at that conference, it provides additional information and so represents the views of
the authors.
Figure 2.2: The Electromagnetic Spectrum using device.

32
2.7 Environmental Exposures from Major Technologies
While all electrical technologies produce environmental EMF, those operating at high power levels produce
exceptionally strong fields and are thus of particular interest at present. These include:
 Undersea Power
 High Voltage Power Lines
 U. S. Navy Submarine Communications Systems
 Broadcast Transmitters
 Radar
 HF Transmitters for Atmospheric Research
 Solar Power Satellite (SPS)
 Mobile Technology
 RF Fields from Radio and TV Broadcast Transmitters
A. Undersea Power Cables
Undersea power cables (also called sea cables) are widely used in Europe, particularly to transfer power
between Scandinavian countries. Most of these systems operate at DC, with loads often exceeding 1000 A.
Systems can be monopolar or bipolar, depending on whether the return current is carried by seawater or a
separate cable. Monopolar systems pass the current into seawater via electrodes, typically graphite anodes and
titanium cathodes that are located on the seabed beneath a 0.5 – 1 m thick protective layer of stone (Koops
2000).
Magnetic fields as transmission lines in air, sea cables produce a magnetic field in their vicinity, which is
proportional to the current in the line. For a monopolar line, the magnetic fields fall off as the inverse of the
distance from the line; those from a bipolar line fall off somewhat faster with distance (typically, as the square of
the distance) because of the partial cancellation of fields from the two conductors that carry current in opposite
directions.
Environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies .
In either case, the magnetic fields close to a line can exceed the geomagnetic field (which is approximately 50
μT) at distances up to several meters from the line. For example, a monopolar line carrying 1500 A produces a
magnetic flux density of approximately 300 μT on the seabed above the cable, falling off to 50 μT at a distance
of 5 m above the seabed, and 13 μT at 20 m above the seabed (Koops 2000).
33
Electric fields Sea cables are isolated from the surrounding sea water by layers of insulation and
metal sheathing. However, electric fields are created by a variety of mechanisms that can exceed natural
ambient levels (which are about 25 μV/m in the North Sea) (Koops 2000). The return current, which in
monopolar systems passes through seawater, creates an electric field due to the resistivity of seawater. Such
fields, near a monopolar line carrying 1500 amperes, range from approximately 1 V/m at a distance 10 cm from
the cathode, to 0.07 V/m at a distance 1 m from the cathode, falling to levels in the range 1 – 50 μV/m far from
the sea electrodes (Koops 2000).
The flow of seawater past the cables is another mechanism that creates electric fields in seawater, due
to magnetic induction. The resulting field strength in the seawater depends on the flow velocity, whether or not
the observer is moving with respect to the water, and on the electrical conductivity of nearby surfaces, but also
can exceed naturally occurring levels.
B. High Voltage Power Lines
High voltage power lines used for long distance transport of electricity operate at 50 or 60 Hz, although DC
transmission lines exist in some regions. Line voltages range up to 765 kV, although some experimental lines
operate at 1000 kV or higher.
Figure 2.3: High Voltage Power line
The field strengths in the vicinity of a power lie depend on the line voltage and current (for magnetic fields)
together with design characteristics of the lines such as the configuration of conductors and height of the towers.
Electric field strengths can be very high near the surfaces of the lines themselves, approaching the dielectric
breakdown strength of air, but they fall off rapidly with distance from the line. At ground level beneath a 765 kV
line carrying 3000 - 4000 A the peak electric field strength is approximately 10 kV/m and the peak magnetic flux
density is approximately 100 μT. At ground level 50 m from the center of the line, the electric field is of the order
of 1 kV/m and the magnetic flux density is about 0.1 μT. In addition to these fields in air, substantial electric
currents may flow in the ground beneath the power lines.

34
C. U. S. Navy Submarine Communications Systems
A naval ELF communications system (initially called Sanguine, later renamed Seafarer) located in Wisconsin
and Michigan is noteworthy because of the extensive environmental analysis it received. The antennas consist
of long (tens of km) overhead transmission lines terminating in buried ground terminals. In operation, electrical
current (several hundred amps at 72-80 Hz) is injected into the lines near the center of the system, which returns
to the generator through ground via electrodes at the ends of the transmission lines. The ground currents radiate
ELF signals into the earth that can be received by submarines around the world. The signals have a dominant
frequency of 76 Hz, but vary somewhat because of the use of frequency shift keying to carry data.
In some respects, the system produces fields in the environment that are similar to those from ordinary
power distribution lines. With the system in operation, magnetic flux densities have been measured up to 4 μT,
and electric fields up to 4 V/m in soil and water and up to 40 V/m in air (Haradem et al. 1993). The fields differ
from those produced by power lines in their frequency and modulation characteristics, and in the larger currents
flowing through the earth (due to the ground return path).
D. Broadcast Transmitters
Numerous RF transmitters exist in modern society, some operating at very high power levels. For example,
international broadcast stations operating in the HF band (from 3 to 20 MHz) can operate at effective radiated
powers in the Megawatt range.
Very close to such transmitters, the RF fields can be very strong, perhaps exceeding acutely hazardous
levels. However, the beam intensity falls off with the inverse square of the distance. For a transmitter with an
2
effective radiated power (ERP) of 1 MW, RF fields above 10 mW/cm exist only in the main beam within about 4
km of the source. Moreover, the transmitters generally employ antennas with gain, which direct the energy in
particular directions; for systems employing high-gain antennas, the RF field intensity outside of the main beams
can be quite low.
While broadcast transmitters represent the strongest sources of environmental RF energy, a multitude of
RF energy sources exists, and all developed countries are blanketed with RF energy at highly variable levels
over wide frequency ranges. A survey by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Janes et al. 1977).
Estimated that the mean population exposure to RF energy in the ranges corresponding to land mobile, UHF
2
and VHF television, and FM radio bands was 0.3 mW/m . The explosive growth of wireless communications has
resulted in the installation of a great many low-powered base stations (at present, about 100,000 base stations
in the U.S. alone, and mean population exposures have certainly increased. There is no basis to anticipate any
environmental impacts of such fields, but if any should exist they will be very widespread in view of the wide
dissemination of the technology.
35
E. Radar
Radar systems operate over a broad range of frequencies from 300 MHz to 15 GHz, with output powers ranging
from a few mW (police radar) to kW (air surveillance systems).
Most radar transmit pulsed RF energy of low duty cycle but high peak power densities, and the high
peak field intensities can be very high. For example, one civilian air-traffic-control radar system transmits 2 μs
RF pulses at a repetition rate of 625 Hz (1305 MHz). The effective radiated power (ERP) of the transmitter is
3590 MW, which results in a peak electric field of 65 V/m in the beam at a distance of 5 km from the transmitter.
Another example is an American ground-based radar system used for detection of incoming missiles, presently
in the evaluation stage. The system consists of phased array transmitters operating at 8 to 12 GHz, that are
2
capable of producing peak RF power densities above 10,000 W/m at distances beyond 100 m from the antenna
2
face, and approximately 4 W/m at distance up to 1 km from the antenna.
Despite the very high peak field levels, the time-averaged exposure levels at any location are far lower,
because of the low duty cycle of the radiation and because the beam is scanned constantly through space.
Nevertheless, directly in front of such high-powered radar transmitters, the beam intensity can reach levels that
are acutely hazardous to humans and animals.
F. HF Transmitters for Atmospheric Research
Several high-powered (300 kW – 2 MW) RF transmitters are in use around the world for upper atmosphere
research. These facilities are designed to perturb the environment (by creating small changes in the ionosphere
over the antenna array) as part of the research objective.
One U.S. Military system, HAARP (High frequency Active Auroral Research Program), located near
Gakona, Alaska, has been controversial on environmental grounds. The facility includes a high powered array of
RF transmitters that are capable of transmitting 3.2 MW of RF energy at 2.8 to 10 MHz directly into the sky,
5
using an antenna array extending over approximately 10 m. While the system radiates high power, the energy
2
density in the beam is moderate, of the order of 30 W/m directly above the antenna array and falling to 0.03
2
W/m at the ionosphere. Exposure levels on the ground, or outside the main beam, are very much lower.

36
G. Solar Power Satellite (SPS)
Starting in the late 1960s, there have been several proposals for large-scale power generation by satellite. The
systems would employ immense arrays of solar cells in geosynchronous orbit, and beam the energy to ground in
the form of microwaves. Large arrays of “rectennas” on the ground would collect the microwave energy and
converted it back to DC for distribution.
These systems vary considerably in their design. One hypothetical “reference” system was subjected to
2
extensive environmental assessment during the late 1970s. This system would generate electricity in a 50 km
10
array of 10 solar cells in geosynchronous orbit, and radiate it as 2.45 GHz microwaves to earth via a phased
2
array antenna 1 km in diameter, to be received by a rectenna 78 km in area.
While the total amount of power transmitted by a full-scale SPS would be very large (5 GW for the reference
system), the energy density in the beam would be rather low because of its large area. In the center of the beam
2 2
of the reference system, the microwave intensity would be about 250 W/m , falling off to 10 W/m at a distance of
2
5 km from the rectenna center and to 1 W/m at 5.7 km (Osepchuk 2000). Thus the beam intensity would exceed
human exposure guidelines only over the rectenna. However birds and insects flying through the main beam,
and small animals on the ground beneath the rectenna would be exposed to RF fields at levels well above
(human) exposure limits.
H. Mobile Technology
Mobile phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In some parts of the world they are the
only reliable phones available. In Ireland their popularity is due to the ease with which they provide continuous
communication without inhibiting freedom of movement. Worldwide, the number of people using mobile phones
is approaching two billion. In Ireland, over four million mobile phones are now in use. Without base stations
these phones could not function. A person‟s exposure to a mobile phone is measured in terms of Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR). This is a measure of the rate of energy deposition in a person‟s body during a call and is
expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg). The SAR varies depending on the distance to the nearest base station
and whether there are RF signal absorbing obstacles between the caller and the base station, such as buildings,
tunnels etc. The SAR exposure from the mobile phone will be highest when the base station is distant and/or the
user is in a building or a stationary vehicle that impedes the phone signal. The phone will then operate with
maximum signal strength. All phones are provided with details of the maximum SAR they will produce when
operating under such conditions. The SAR values are all measured in exactly the same way in EU approved
laboratories to ensure the values obtained are accurate and comparable.SAR values for the most widely used
phones range from 0.1 to1.2 W/kg.

37
I. RF Fields from Radio and TV Broadcast Transmitters
While major radio and TV broadcast facilities are typically subject to environmental impact analysis, as far as
impacts of the fields are concerned, few extend beyond literature reviews of the scientific literature. One notable
exception was a proposed high frequency radio transmitter for the Voice of America to be located in the Arava
desert in Israel. The proposed station would have been the world‟s largest radio transmitting station, consisting
of 37 antennas of up to170 m in height. The project was approved by the governments of Israel and the U.S. in
1987, but terminated by the U.S. government in 1993, in part because of opposition on environmental grounds.
A major issue in the controversy was the concern that the transmitter would disrupt the migration of
birds, either through collisions with the towers or through RF exposure. On the basis of a computer model,
Kleinhaus et al. concluded that birds would not experience excessive thermal loads by flying through the beam
of the proposed transmitter (Kleinhaus et al. 1995). A more recent observational study reported that homing
pigeons can perceive the rather strong RF fields near a short wave transmitter and have a “general reluctance”
to fly to lofts located near it (Steiner and Bruderer 1999).
There have been reports of dead birds being found on the ground near tall transmission towers. While the cause
of these deaths is poorly understood, evidence suggests that tower lighting may be a factor. For example,
Bruderer and Steuri (Bruderer and Steuri 1999) reported no effect of RF exposure (from X band radar) on the
paths of nocturnally migrating birds. However, switching a strong searchlight on and off at the top of the tower
produced significant effects on the flight paths of the bird.
As stated above these are emitted from sources such as visual display units, television sets, AM radio, induction
heaters, mobile phones, etc. The primary literature reviews of effects used for the preparation of the present
report were the “Stewart Report” (3) published in 2000 and Elwood‟s review (4) of the epidemiological studies,
which was published in 1999 and later extended to early 2001 in order to identify an exposure standard for
Australia . To the knowledge of the CSTEE, no additional relevant findings have been reported subsequently.
2.8 Discussion
However, it is clear that major gaps in knowledge exist, and the available literature on the subject is
scattered and highly variable in quality. Environmental impact analyses of major projects, which are generally
commissioned by sponsors of the projects, are generally limited to literature reviews (often focusing narrowly on
human health concerns). Much less frequently (e.g. with fields from high voltage power lines), laboratory
experimentation or ecological assessment have been undertaken.

38
This scattered approach is inefficient and undesirable for several reasons:

Inefficiency It is inefficient to develop multiple lengthy (often thousand-page) environmental impact
assessments for broadly similar projects. Many of the environmental issues may be project specific. However,
other issues, including environmental effects of electromagnetic fields, may reappear in similar form in different
projects. It should be possible to reduce the duplication of effort by relying on authoritative reviews of the
scientific literature.
Scientific inadequacies in the studies When agencies have commissioned laboratory or field studies,
the quality of the work has been very mixed. A review of the US Navy sponsored research on environmental
effects of the ELF communications system noted that 40% of the papers that had been submitted for publication
were rejected by the journals (U.S. Navy 1975).
In part, this may reflect reluctance of journals to publish negative results, rather than from flaws in the scientific
studies. However, a later review of 11 ecological monitoring studies conducted for the ELF communications
system by the National Research Council (National Research Council 1997) identified major problems including
inadequate exposure assessment, selection of inappropriate biological endpoints for study, lack of adequate
statistical power to detect effects, and other major flaws in study design. The significance of these criticisms is
underscored by the fact that the program was undoubtedly the most comprehensive analysis of environmental
effects of electromagnetic fields of any major electrical facility.
It should be noted that other major projects involving high-power applications of electromagnetic fields are likely
to be considered in the near future, and these issues will certainly recur. For example, a solar power satellite is
still under consideration by U.S. agencies, and the project can be expected to raise controversy on
environmental and human health grounds.

39
Chapter 03
Biological Interaction Mechanisms
3.1 Introduction
The biological effects of RF radiation depend on the rate at which power is absorbed. This rate of energy
absorption is called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and is measured in watts/kilogram (W/kg). SARs are
difficult to measure on a routine basis, so what is usually measured is the plane wave power density.
Electromagnetic waves may produce biological effects which may sometimes, but not always, lead to adverse
health effects. It is important to understand the difference between the two:
A biological effect occurs when exposure to electromagnetic waves causes some noticeable or detectable
physiological change in a biological system.
Figure 3.1: Conductivity of different tissues according to voltage.

40
An adverse health effect occurs when the biological effect is outside the normal range for the body to
compensate, and thus leads to some detrimental health condition.Fields at frequencies above about 1 MHz
primarily cause heating by moving ions and water molecules through the medium in which they exist. Even very
low levels of energy produce a small amount of heat, but this heat is carried away by the body's normal
thermoregulatory processes without the person noticing it. A number of studies at these frequencies suggest that
exposure to fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and
memory loss. The deposition of RF energy in the human body tends to increase the body temperature. During
exercise, the metabolic heat production can reach levels of 3-5 W/kg. In normal thermal environments, an SAR
of 1-4 W/kg for 30 minutes produces average body temperature increases of less than 1°C for healthy adults.
3.2 Biological Interaction Mechanisms
This very large topic has been reviewed many times before. Some interaction mechanisms can be expected to
occur in different species.
The World Health Organization (WHO) shows the possible Risk

 Damage nerves.
 Blood cells to leak hemoglobin.
 Cause memory loss and mental confusion.
 Cause headaches.
 Create joint pain, muscle spasms.
 Create rash on the skin.
 Brain's electrical activity during sleep.
 Induce ringing! in the ears, impair sense of smell .
 Retina damage and eye cancer.
 Open the blood-brain barrier to viruses and toxins.
 Reduce the efficiency of white blood cells.
 Raise bad cholesterol levels.
 Learning and Behavioral disorders.
 Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure.
 Heart rhythm disorders.
 Heart attacks and strokes younger people.
 Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors.
 Repetitive Strain Injuries
41
 Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness

 Nervous and connective tissue pains
The Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) did not identify any major reason for
dissent from these reviews with regard to either exhaustiveness of reported scientific observations or the
interpretation of scientific findings. Particular attention was given to the sections regarding the biological end
points specifically mentioned in the questions asked to the CSTEE, i.e. effects on the immune and circulatory
system, on the nervous system, on the general behavior of exposed people as well as experimental and
epidemiological studies investigating carcinogenic risks. Conclusions reached by the CSTEE on each of these
areas are summarized below:
1. Immune system
Thermal levels of RF exposure elicit both stimulatory and inhibitory responses in components of the immune
system. These effects were generally found to be transitory, returning to normal levels following termination of
exposure. No consistent effects of low level RF exposure have been reported on blood forming and circulating
blood cells or on immune responses.
2. Heart and blood pressure

With the exception of a well designed but small study (which therefore requires confirmation in larger and
independent investigations) reporting early effects on blood pressure in volunteers exposed to a conventional
GSM digital mobile phone position close to the head, available findings provide no consistent evidence of an
effect of mobile phones on the heart and circulation.
Figure 3.2: Biological Interaction Mechanism.

•
42
• The above diagram depicts the electric field alternations, at a frequency f, of the electromagnetic wave
that is incident on biological tissue.
• Remember: For RF and microwave fields, this frequency is generally between 30 kHz and 300 GHz
Ionic conduction and vibration of dipole molecules following alternations of the field lead to an increase
of kinetic energy which is converted to heat
• The simplistic model below elucidates this phenomenon by first demonstrating induction of dipole
moments by an applied electric field (electronic polarization)
• These dipole moments are internally induced electric fields that oppose the externally applied field
• They try to (unsuccessfully) follow the alterations of the electric field at RF and microwave frequencies
but instead lag behind the transmitted wave, thus energy is gained
3. Nervous system effects

In the absence of heating, evidence for changes in neuronal excitability, neurotransmitter function and innate
and learned behavior and for changes in the blood - brain barrier has been inconsistent and unconvincing.
Extrapolation from laboratory studies in rats to humans is problematic because of the differences in the pattern
of RF energy deposition between rodents and humans. Furthermore, in contrast to humans, rats have the
capacity to perceive RF as sounds, which is likely to influence their reactivity.
Figure 3.3: Blood – Brain barrier.

43
Some studies have suggested an effect on membrane proteins and on the flux of calcium and other ions
across the membrane of neurons and EEG rhythms but these are not reproducible. Due to the proximity of
mobile phones to the head, public concerns were raised regarding a potentially toxic effect of RF on the central
nervous system. Five aspects are usually considered in toxicology regarding the nervous system: morphology,
brain function, electrophysiology, behavior and development (which is addressed in a later paragraph). Several
studies had been published concerning the potential neurotoxic effects of radiofrequencies emitted by the mobile
phones. Transient minor effects were observed on the electroencephalogram (EEG), sleep structure, and on
cognitive processes in human subjects (Mann and Röschke 1996, Preece et al. 1999, Huber et al. 2000, Koivisto
et al. 2000a, Koivisto et al. 2000b, Krause et al. 2000). Some of the observations could not be replicated
(Wagner et al.
1998, Wagner et al. 2000), and studies with negative outcomes were also published (Röschke and Mann 1997).
In animals, some previous studies did show disturbance of work memory in rats exposed to RF (Lai et al. 1994,
Wang and Lai 2000). However, the most surprising effect was that very low SAR values (mW/kg) caused
increased permeability of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) in rats (Salford et al. 1994, Persson et al. 1997).
Alterations of the BBB had also been found in another study (Neubauer et al. 1990), but not by Tsurita et al.
(2000). In rats exposed to 2 W/kg Fritze and co-workers demonstrated effects on BBB only at SAR levels above
7.5 W/kg (Fritze et al. 1997). The BBB isolates the CNS from the rest of the organism, controls molecule fluxes,
and protects the brain (Purves et al. 2001). Increased permeability of BBB can allow unwanted substances to
reach the CNS, with possible pathological consequences (inflammation, neurone death).
4. Neurobehavioral effects and effects on driving

Relevance of experimental studies to man is uncertain because of interspecies differences in the perception of
intense pulsed RF fields. Studies on the acute effects of mobile phones on human volunteers have shown some
neurobehavioral changes (such so-called neurobehavioral effects are mostly reporting of subjective malaise),
the mechanism of which might include a localized heating effect. The interaction between electromagnetic
fields and drugs has not been adequately investigated. The main effects of the use of mobile phones on driving
are attributable to diversion of the attention.
5. Ocular effects
The eye is a potential target organ of RF and microwave energy because it is not protected by the bone. Electric
activity is part of the retina function and therefore objects placed in front of the eye may act as “heat sink” for
thermal effects, In addition, the fibres that make up the bulk of the lens have a limited capacity for repair
following insult.
The literature on the ocular effects of microwaves in laboratory animals (including monkeys and rabbits) is
extensive, but experimental designs are difficult to reproduce and results are still controversial. Marked
interspecies differences have been noticed. Lens cataracts has been produced after exposure to very high

44
frequencies, but it is not clear whether or not the effect is due to thermal changes. Thus, the relevance of
current knowledge to human risk, in the absence of thermal effect, is very limited.
6. Observations in humans regarding health outcomes other than cancer

No consistent evidence of effects on humans has yet been derived from formal epidemiological studies. This
cannot be taken to mean that RF and microwaves do not pose any hazard to human health. Most formal
epidemiological studies have focused on the occurrence of cancer. Among people exposed to radio waves or
otherwise exposed to electromagnetic fields, there have been case reports or reports of small series of cases of
subjective symptoms (fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, depression, burning sensations, rashes, muscular
pain, ear, nose, and throat problems, as well as digestive disorders etc.) in individuals that have been
characterized as “hypersensitive”. The symptoms described seem to affect a limited number of persons but as
yet there are no reliable estimates of the frequency of its occurrence. Almost nothing is known on the role of
conditions of exposure (frequency, concentration, duration etc.). Limited studies on volunteers found no
connection between reported symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields. It is therefore very difficult to
ascertain whether these are true effects.
7. Genotoxicity
An overview of in vitro genotoxicity data, subjected to a weight-of-evidence evaluation concluded that there are
no strong indications that electromagnetic fields between 30
MHz and 300 GHz cause DNA damage. Where effects were found, they were attributable to hyperthermia.
Despite minor inconsistencies in the literature, it is concluded that, in vivo and in vitro experiments on the
induction of micronuclei, SCE or chromosomal aberrations did not detect any effect. Cell transformation assays
of radiofrequency field exposure are difficult to interpret, because of technical difficulties.
Figure 3.4 : DNA Chain deflection.

45
There have been reports of DNA fragmentation and on effects on nucleic acid synthesis, which could be relevant
to malignancy, but these have not been confirmed independently and are subject to much controversy. The
possible interaction between electromagnetic fields and physical or chemical mutagenic or carcinogenic agents
represents an interesting hypothesis, which has not been yet sufficiently investigated.
The photon energy of radiation from mobile phones is much lower than the energy necessary to break chemical
bonds. It is therefore generally accepted that RF fields do
not directly damage DNA. However, it is possible that certain cellular constituents altered by exposure to EMF,
such as free radicals, indirectly affect DNA. In most studies, the genotoxic effects have been investigated after
short-term exposure (for review see Moulder et al. 1999, Vijayalaxmi and Obe 2004). The REFLEX study
performed by twelve research groups in seven European countries, investigated basic mechanisms induced by
EMF using toxicological and molecular biological technologies at cellular and sub-cellular levels in vitro. One of
the REFLEX investigators (Diem et al. 2005) reported DNA strand breaks (measured by both the neutral and
alkaline versions of the “comet” assay) in human diploid fibroblasts and cultured rat granulosa cells after RF field
exposure (1800 MHz; SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg;
The photon energy of radiation from mobile phones is much lower than the energy necessary to break chemical
bonds. It is therefore generally accepted that RF fields do not directly damage DNA. However, it is possible that
certain cellular constituents altered by exposure to EMF, such as free radicals, indirectly affect DNA. In most
studies, the genotoxic effects have been investigated after short-term exposure (for review see Moulder et al.
1999, Vijayalaxmi and Obe 2004). The REFLEX study performed by twelve research groups in seven European
countries, investigated basic mechanisms induced by EMF using toxicological and molecular biological
technologies at cellular and sub-cellular levels in vitro. The REFLEX investigators (Diem et al. 2005) reported
DNA strand breaks (measured by both the neutral and alkaline versions of the
“comet” assay) in human diploid fibroblasts and cultured rat granulosa cells after RF field exposure (1800 MHz;
SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg; different modulations; during 4, 16 and 24h;intermittent 5 min on/10 min off or continuous
wave). Statistically significant increases in micronucleus formation and in chromosomal aberrations were
observed in fibroblasts as well.Nicolova et al. (2005) reported after a 6-h but not after a 48-h RF field exposure a
low and transient increase of DNA strand breaks in embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitor cells.
8. Experimental carcinogenesis
The possible carcinogenicity of RF has been investigated in a number of experimental systems. Results have
been essentially negative. Original observations of a possible promoting effect on mammary carcinogenesis in
mice were not confirmed in subsequent studies. An interesting observation is that of Repacholi et al , who
induced a two-fold increase in lymphoma incidence in a strain of lymphoma-prone transgenic mice (E mu-Pim1)
46
following exposure (1 hour daily for up to 18 months) to plane-wave fields of 900 MHz with a pulse repetition
frequency of 217 Hz and a pulse width of 0.6 ms . As yet, the open literature has not reported any replication of
this finding. It is therefore concluded that it provides inadequate evidence of experimental carcinogenicity.
In 2002, the “International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC)” published a monograph on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risks of static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields to humans (IARC,
2002). ELF magnetic fields were classified into group “2B” (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”). While the
outcome of this evaluation was already known at the time of the last opinion report, the IARC reasons for this
decision were not yet published. The justification states limited evidence in humans based on consistent results
from sound epidemiological studies showing an association with an increased leukemia risk in children at field
strengths above 0.3/0.4 μT (Ahlbom et al. 2000), but bias in these studies could explain some of the raised risk.
The findings from observational studies are not supported by studies in
experimental animals, which provide inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity. Furthermore, the IARC monograph
concluded, there was no evidence for an association of ELF magnetic fields with any other type of cancer. ELF
electric fields were grouped into “3” (“is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans”).
Only a few studies on childhood leukemia were conducted since the adoption of the previous opinion, and they
did not add anything substantially to the previous studies. At a workshop of WHO in 2004, possible explanations
for the childhood leukemia finding have been put forward (summarized in (Kheifets et al. 2005)). None of them
reaches a level beyond speculation. One recent study has observed a decreased survival in children with
leukemia being exposed to ELF magnetic fields above 0.3 μT (Foliart et al. 2006). This finding, however, is
based on small numbers and no mechanism has been proposed, so confirmation studies have to be awaited
before conclusions should be drawn. Most new ELF studies have been looking into breast cancer or brain
tumour risk. Breast cancer caught particular interest because of experimental results suggesting that melatonin
synthesis was related to ELF field exposure and because melatonin might play a role in the development of
breast cancer. Several studies also reported an increased breast cancer risk among subjects with elevated ELF
exposure. However, later big and well controlled studies have been entirely negative and the hypothesis of a link
between ELF field exposure and breast cancer risk is essentially written off (Forssen et al. 2005). While some
new data on brain tumors have appeared since the previous opinion, firm conclusions can still not be drawn.
9. Effects on melatonin production

Recent studies on human volunteers and well-designed studies in mice have not provided
any evidence of an effect of EMF on this endpoint. There is no support to the hypothesis that
a decreased production of melatonin might interfere with mammary Carcinogenesis either in
women or in animals. Thus, relevance to long-term effects seems negligible.

47
10. Epidemiological studies on the association between RF magnetic fields and human cancer
A number of studies which address three circumstances of exposure: the workplace, the residence close to RF
emitters and the use of mobile phones have been published. These have been reviewed in the “Stewart‟s
report”, by Elwood and by a Working Group assembled by the Canadian Royal Society. Overall, the
epidemiological evidence of RF and microwaves does not suggest consistent cancer excesses. Some studies
were very large (e.g. the “Motorola study” included 200.000 subjects followed up for a total of approximately 2
million person year-risk). Thus, for the time being, epidemiological studies on the association between cancer
and RF do not indicate any need for reconsidering the exposure limits that have been set a few years ago. This
is consistent with the lack of evidence of genotoxic effects believed to be associated to the process of
carcinogenesis.
Nevertheless, the need for additional epidemiological surveillance is suggested by some limitations of the
studies that are currently available:
i. The relatively short period of observation compared to the potential latent period of long-term effects.
ii. The use of proxies (e.g. distance from putative sources, extent of use of cellular phone, etc) in order to
estimate individual exposure which may be unreliable and could artificially lower risk estimates.
iii. Low statistical power of analyses indicating lack of association.
A variety of biological endpoints have been investigated after RF field exposure in vitro. Much of the work had
focused on genotoxic effects, although there was no prior indication that nonthermal RF fields induce DNA
damage. However, since some reports indicated genotoxic effects from RF fields, the earlier CSTEE opinion
recommended the confirmation of these findings.
11. Membrane excitation and electric shock
The dominant hazard of low-frequency fields in humans is electrical shock, which arises from the excitation of
cell membranes within the body.
Because of the weak coupling between ELF fields and the body, the production of shock generally requires that
currents be introduced into the body by contact with a conductive surface. Scant data exist for thresholds for
electric shock across a wide range of species, but the thresholds for humans and dogs (and presumably other
species) vary with body size (Reilly 1998).

48
12. Thermal effects
The dominant hazard mechanisms for high-frequency (RF) fields are associated with tissue heating. Exposure to
high levels of RF energy will result in thermal damage to tissue (burns). A different hazard mechanism arises
from excessive thermal load to the body, even in the absence of thermal damage to tissue. The threshold for
such effects depends on the animal‟s thermoregulatory mechanisms, level of activity, and environmental
conditions, all of which are highly species-dependent (Gordon and Ali 1987; Berman et al. 1985). These two
considerations (interspecies differences in thermal physiology and differences in absorption due to variations in
body size) make it difficult to extrapolate from animals to humans to estimate thresholds for thermally injurious
exposures.
13. Other Nonthermal Mechanisms
A variety of nonthermal mechanisms is well established by which electric and magnetic fields can interact with
biological structures. These include electrically or magnetically induced forces and torques on biological
structures, and excitation and electrical breakdown of cell membranes. More exotic mechanisms include
magnetic field effects on free radical reactions. There are, in addition, numerous proposals for other nonthermal
mechanisms that, presently, lack adequate experimental support and are not considered in this review.
Whether such mechanisms actually result in noticeable biological effects under real-world exposure
conditions is a different question. Quantitative considerations (Foster 2000) suggest that these nonthermal
mechanisms generally require very high field strengths, and are not likely candidates for producing observable
biological effects under most real-world exposure conditions. They may be important, however, under special
circumstances. For example, Schoenbach et al. reported that E. coli cells are destroyed (presumably due to
electrical breakdown of their membranes) by exposure to brief (tens of ns to tens of μs) broadband electric field
pulses as strong as 6 MV/m applied directly to the cell suspension (Schoenbach et al. 1997). These exposure
conditions are not associated with present technologies, but may occur with future military communications or
weapons systems.
14. Species dependent mechanisms
Some species have exceptional sensitivity to environmental electric or magnetic fields, and may be affected by
electrical technologies in ways that would not occur in humans under similar exposure conditions.
Electric field detection
Sharks and rays (among other species) possess specialized electrical sense organs (the Ampullae of
Lorenzini) that enable them to detect electric fields in the surrounding seawater as low as 1 μV/m (Kalmijn 1982).

49
This sensitivity is limited to low frequencies (a few Hz in the shark), but may provide a mechanism for
adverse effects from DC fields.
Magnetic field detection
Some bacteria possess biomagnetite particles, and are aligned by the Earth‟s magnetic field. Similar
particles have been reported in tissues of higher species, including human brain tissue, and some investigators
have suggested that this might provide a mechanism for magnetic field detection in higher animals (Kirschvink et
al. 1992).
A number of insects and higher species have been reported to have the ability to detect the Earth‟s
magnetic field, although the literature is controversial with respect to field sensing capabilities of particular
species. Evidence is particularly strong that honeybees can detect static DC fields as low as 26 nT. This
sensitivity extends to AC fields as well, although the thresholds for detection increase dramatically with
frequency, e.g. the threshold for magnetic field detection in the honeybee is 100 μT at 60 Hz (Kirschvink et al.
1997).
15. Reproduction and development
Epidemiological studies of adverse pregnancy outcomes following exposure to RF fields have been reviewed by
Verschaeve and Maes (1998), Heynick and Merrit (2003) and Feychting (2005a). The evidence on possible
effects of RF fields on pregnancy outcomes is virtually limited to occupational exposures among
physiotherapists. The endpoints studied include spontaneous abortions, birth weight, gender ratio, and
congenital malformations. Although some positive findings have been reported, no specific type of malformation
or other adverse outcome has been consistently reported. Several of the studies have limited statistical power,
especially for rare outcomes such as malformation, and there is a potential for recall bias. The available results
do not allow any definite conclusions.
Numerous studies have evaluated developmental effects of RF fields on mammals, birds, and other non-
mammalian species. These studies, reviewed recently by Heynick and Merritt (2003) and Juutilainen (2005),
have clearly shown that RF fields are teratogenic at exposure levels that are sufficiently high to cause significant
increase of temperature and exceed reference levels from exposure guidelines. There is no consistent evidence
of effects at nonthermal exposure levels. However, only a few studies have evaluated possible effects on
postnatal development using sensitive endpoints, such as behavioral effects.
16. Sensitivity of children

Concerns about the potential vulnerability of children to RF fields have been raised because of the potentially
greater susceptibility of their developing nervous system; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive than
that of adults since it has a higher water content and ion concentration, RF penetration is greater relative to head
size, and they have a greater absorption of RF energy in the tissues of the head at mobile telephone
frequencies. Finally, they will have a longer lifetime exposure. Few relevant epidemiological or laboratory studies
50
have addressed the possible effects of RF field exposure on children. Owing to widespread use of
mobile phones among children and adolescents and relatively high exposures to the brain, investigation of the
potential effect of RF fields in the development of childhood brain tumor is warranted. The characteristics of
mobile phone use among children, their potential biological vulnerability and longer lifetime exposure make
extrapolation from adult studies problematic. There is an ongoing debate on possible differences in RF
absorption between children and adults during mobile phone usage, e.g. due to differences in anatomy (Wiart et
al. 2005, Christ and Kuster 2005). Several scientific questions like possible differences of the dielectric tissue
parameters remain open.
Figure 3.5: Photo of a one day baby wearing RFID tag.
The anatomical development of the nervous system is finished around 2 years of age, when children do not yet
use mobile phones although baby phones have recently been introduced. Functional development, however,
continues up to adult age and could be disturbed by RF fields.
3.3 Symptoms
In the 2001 opinion it was concluded that the knowledge was insufficient for the implementation of measures
aimed at the identification and protection of a highly sensitive sub-group of the population. With regard to reports
of subjective symptoms from individuals (possibly “hypersensitive”), the limited number of studies on volunteers
had found no connection between reported symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields. There was a lack
of information on the role of conditions of exposure (frequency, concentration duration etc) and possible
biological mechanism. While epidemiological studies had not shown any consistent evidence of effects on

51
humans, it was pointed out that this could not be taken to mean that RF field exposure does not pose any
hazard to human health.
The Normal Symptoms are:

Tightness, discomfort, stiffness, soreness or burning in the hands, wrists, fingers, forearms, or elbows.
Tingling, coldness, or numbness in the hands.
Clumsiness or loss of strength and coordination in the hands.
Pain that wakes you up at night.
Feeling a need to massage your hands, wrists, and arms.
Pain in the upper back, shoulders, or neck associated with using the computer.
A variety of non-specific self-reported symptoms (for example headache, fatigue, dizziness and concentration
difficulties) have been suggested to be triggered by exposure to RF fields. These possible health effects have
been discussed and studied mainly from two different aspects:
1) A possible increase in symptoms in populations living close to mobile communication base stations and
2) Reports from individuals that exposure to RF from mobile phones (and sometimes also base stations)
triggers symptoms.
In the latter case, some individuals attribute their health problems to an increased sensitivity (hypersensitivity) to
electromagnetic fields. The term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS) has been used to describe such cases
of non-specific medically unexplained health problems attributed by the afflicted individuals to electromagnetic
fields (in many cases including ELF fields) or to being in the vicinity of electrical equipment.
There have only been a few attempts to study symptom prevalence and symptom severity in relation to exposure
to RF fields from base stations. The methodological limitations of these cross-sectional epidemiological studies
preclude conclusions regarding a possible causal relationship between increase in symptoms and exposure to
RF. One study by Hutter et al. (2006) performed measurements of RF fields in the bedrooms of the participants.
In this Austrian study, inhabitants of homes in the vicinity (distance 20-600m) of ten selected base stations (five
in Vienna and five in a rural area, Carinthia) were invited to participate in a study on environment and health.
Mobile communication base stations were not mentioned in the invitation. Spot measurements were done after
the questionnaires and computer based tests were completed. The participants were classified into three
exposure groups based on calculations of the theoretical maximal power density from the selected base stations
(i.e. when the base station is using 100% of its capacity). The mean power densities were 0.04, 0.23 and 1.3
mW/m2 in the respective groups.

52
Three out of 14 self-reported symptoms (headache, cold hands or feet and difficulties to concentrate) were
significantly more commonly reported in the highest exposure group. The results were adjusted for age, sex,
region, regular use of mobile phone and fear of adverse effects of the base station, but not for socio-
demographic factors. Exposure from other sources (e.g. other base stations) was not reported. The results
should be replicated before any conclusions on a causal relationship between RF exposure and the reported
effect on some symptoms may be drawn. Provocation studies on symptoms should also be considered.
Compared to epidemiological studies provocation studies may have the advantage of better controlled exposure
conditions and randomization. The focus is however somewhat different in provocation studies, which will assess
only acute effects while epidemiological studies may include long effects on well-being term.
A relationship between RF and symptoms in healthy volunteers was investigated in one provocation study
(Koivisto et al. 2001). No increase in symptoms was observed during RF exposure as compared to sham
exposure. The limited number of studies on detection of RF at exposure levels relevant to mobile communication
systems under blind conditions has not provided any consistent proof of ability to detect the fields, neither in
healthy individuals nor in subjects who report EHS.
Health complaints described as EHS and reported to be triggered by mobile phones have also been studied in a
limited number of provocation studies. A WHO Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity (WHO 2005) and recent
reviews of the literature on subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone
communication (Seitz et al. 2005) and provocation studies including subjects reporting EHS (Rubin et al. 2005)
have presented similar conclusions. The main conclusion is that although symptoms described as EHS are real
and may be severe and disabling, a relationship between symptoms and RF field exposure has not been proven.
Most likely, the health problems described as EHS are not related to the physical presence of EMF and more
research is needed to learn more about the conditions inducing EHS.
The studies published after the WHO workshop and the reviews mentioned above have not provided any
information that would contradict these conclusions. The influence of a base station-like exposure of 2140 MHz
RF fields on well-being that was reported already in 2003 (Zwamborn et al. 2003) was not confirmed in a follow-
up study (Regel et al. 2006). In a study published by the TNO-Institute23 (the so called TNO study), only
available as grey cover report Zwamborn et al. (2003) found a decrease in well-being (based on an index of 23
items from subscales of anxiety, somatic symptoms, inadequacy, depression and hostility) during exposure to
2140 MHz RF fields (UMTS). The decrease in well-being was shown in the group of subjects who were recruited
based on self-reported sensitivity to RF fields as well as in the non-symptomatic control group. No effect on
symptoms was observed in any of the groups for 945 MHz or 1840 MHz RF fields (GSM). The study, while
reporting an effect of UMTS exposure, thus failed to confirm the reported belief in the group with self-reported
sensitivity that GSM exposure triggered symptoms. The TNO study was widely discussed since a possible health
effect of UMTS might have large implications on the introduction and use of the third generation of mobile

53
networks (UMTS). Follow-up studies were initiated in several countries and in 2006 the first results were
published (Regel et al. 2006). The experimental protocol was improved as compared to the TNO-study, e.g. a
larger study group, better dosimetry and longer intervals between the exposure sessions. Two exposure levels of
RF fields (E-fields strength of 1 V/m –as in the TNO study- and 10 V/m) were applied, in order to assess any
possible dose-response relationship. Peak spatial SARs in the brain (averaged over 10 g) were 45 and 4500
μW/kg. Well-being was assessed in two standard questionnaires (including the one used in the TNO study). No
effect on symptoms was observed, neither in the group of subjects with self-reported RF related symptoms nor in
the non-symptomatic control group. There was no association between perceived field strengths and actual RF
exposure.

54
Chapter 4
Environmental Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
4.1 Introduction
The environments are highly sensitive to the electromagnetic field and toxicity of ICT waste.Accoddingly, “EMF
has become one of the most pervasive environmental influences and exposure levels as many frequencies are
increasing significantly as the technological revolution continues unabated and new applications using different
parts of the spectrum and toxicity are found."
- World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
4.2 Ecosystem Threats
ICT have effect on Crop performance, Effects on honeybees, Effects on animals .Effect on Tree,
Marine life, Bird species.
Figure 4.1 : Ecology System.

55
Power lines and other major projects routinely generate environmental impact analyses, sometimes
including environmental effects of the electromagnetic fields. The amount of scientific data on effects of EMF to
biota is, however, highly variable. n 1997, Btaustein published a paper which linked ambient, but rising, levels of
UV-B radiation in sunlight to physical deformities in amphibians. This study found that more than 90% of the
salamander embryos not shielded from such radiation either died or hatched with deformities, whereas
practically all of those protected by special filters survived and were perfectly normal.
Figure 4.2: Aquascape Ecosystem
In 1998, he co-authored a study which correlated an increase in UV-B radiation to retinal damage in the
Cascades frog. It pointed out that the effect of solar UV radiation on the eye and retina is well known in animals
and that the risk rises at higher altitudes. In frogs, this could lead to progressive decline in visual ability,
impairment of visually guided behaviors, and less successful avoidance of predators. The conclusion was that
increasing terrestrial levels of solar UV radiation represent a serious environmental threat to species across
many ecosystems, including humans.
In 1999, Blaustein published a study that showed a level of nitrogen based compounds the
Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for human drinking water was high enough to kill some species of
amphibians. Levels of this type are often found in agricultural areas as a result of crop fertilizers. When exposed
to them, some tadpoles and young frogs reduce their feeding activity, swim less vigorously, experience
disequilibrium, develop physical abnormalities, suffer paralysis, and eventually die.
4.2.1 Effects on electrically and magnetically sensitive animals
Kalmijn (Kalmijn 2000)suggested that electric or magnetic fields near sea cables, which would exceed
ambient levels, might affect prey sensing or navigational abilities of electrically or magnetically sensitive species.
He considered monopolar power links to be are more likely to affect aquatic animals than bipolar links, because

56
they produce perceptible levels of fields over larger distances from the cables. There is little data to directly
support or refute these suggestions, however.
Considerable research has been conducted in the US and Europe and elsewhere on potential environmental
effects of fields from high voltage power lines. Overall, there have been few reported environmental effects of
even the strong fields close to the lines, and those that have been reported have been of minor environmental
significance. This extensive literature up to the mid 1980s is reviewed by Christensen (Christensen 1987).
Reviews of more recent work are by Soja (Soja 2000) and Sheppard (Sheppard 2000). These studies have
considered a variety of endpoints as discussed below.
4.2.2 Effects on plants under controlled laboratory conditions
Several authors have reported an enhancement of seed germination from exposure to DC or ELF magnetic
fields of about 50 μT (Jones and McLeod 1996; Phirke et al. 1996). The mechanisms for this reported effect are
not understood, and other investigators have been unable to confirm the findings (Potts et al. 1997). A few
studies have reported increased germination of seeds in ELF electric fields in the range of 1 – 100 kV/m (Morar
et al. 1995; Zhang and Hashinaga 1997).
At electric field strengths above 20 kV/m, clear damage occurs to the tips of plant leaves due to corona
(Johnson et al. 1979). Rogers et al. (Rogers et al. 1981) noted changes in the growth rates of trees (oak,
Douglas fir) grown near a 1100 kV test line in field strengths up to 123 kV/m. The changes were associated with
visible corona at the tips of the leaves. Other effects include delayed leaf senescence and leaf shedding in
plants close to the line. Milk production (Lefcourt 1991; Surbrook and Reese 1981). The problem would seem
manageable by proper installation of electrical systems. However, there has been little research in this area, and
few articles have appeared on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Power lines present hazards to birds, either from electrocution when they fly into the lines or by impact
when they hit the lines or supporting structures. One author has suggested that birds of some endangered
species are particularly vulnerable (Bevanger 1998). While this is not an effect of the EMF per se, it is a potential
environmental impact of the technology that needs to be considered.
These differences may result in part from differences in absorbed power in the bodies of these different
animals together with different thermoregulatory abilities of different species. The RF frequency used by the
reference SPS system is close to the body resonant frequency of rats, and the maximum exposure levels in the
beam of the SPS are sufficient to cause significant thermal loading in the animals.

57
4.2.3 Radio Waves Hurt Tree Growth
All phone and other electronic use has depleted aspen seedlings and honey bees Katie Haggerty is a woman
with no academic degree from Lyons, Colorado, but she has published an environmental research paper in the
International Journal of Forestry Research about the harmful effects radio waves have on aspen
seedlings.Haggerty started studying electromagnetic fields 20 years ago. She had heard of a preliminary
experiment conducted near her home north of Steamboat Mountain that aspen seedlings were healthier when
shielded from radio waves.
Sometime in 2005, she saw that her geraniums were stunted and had an inkling that it may have had to do with
radio frequencies, since she placed her plants in a Faraday cage, which is covered by a metal screen that
prevents radio frequency energy from "hitting" the plants. Haggerty's inkling was correct, since her geraniums
were suddenly growing at a faster rate with larger leaves.
She first planted the aspen seedlings in 2007, where one group was in a Faraday cage, another was wrapped in
fiberglass that didn't protect the plants from radio waves and the third group was completely unprotected. The
procedure began in spring, and by the end of July, there were noticeable differences in growth. Once October
approached, even the colors varied.
"I found that the shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves and more total leaf
area," said Haggerty. "The shielded group produced 60 percent more leaf area and 74 percent more shoot
length than the mock-shielded group.
"The leaves in the shielded group produced striking fall colors, while the two exposed groups stayed light green
or yellow and were affected by areas of dead leaf tissue. The shielded leaves turned red, which was a good
sign. The unshielded leaves in both exposed groups had extensive decay, and some leaves fell off while they
were still green."
According to the U.S. Forest Service researchers, drought conditions are likely the cause of death for thousands
of acres of aspen trees in Colorado. While Haggerty recognizes that her study is only a preliminary experiment,
she argues that the surrounding area is "saturated" with radio waves from televisions, radios, microwave ovens,
weather radar and cell phones that are contributing to the demise of these forests."It appears that there may be
negative effects on the health and growth of aspens from the radio frequency background," said Haggerty.

58
But trees are not the only victims falling dead to radio waves. According to researchers at Chandigarh's Panjab
University in India, radiation from mobile phones is a key factor in the decline of honey bees throughout Europe
and the United States. The experiment was conducted by putting two cell phones that were powered on for a
total of one half hour per day inside one bee hive while putting dummy models of cell phones in another. Three
months later, researchers found a severe decline in honey bees in the active cell phone infested hive. In
addition, the queen bee in the powered cell phone hive produced less eggs.Whether it's plants or bees,
researchers and everyday citizens like Haggerty alike have proven that radio waves have an adverse effect on
the surrounding environment and hope that it will change the point of views of doubters and help find ways to
protect the environment.Haggerty's paper sparked interest in Wayne Shepperd of the Forest Service's Rocky
Mountain Research Station, and he had Haggerty present her data at the regional conference on forest decline
in Fort Collins in 2008. From there, the paper was accepted at the North American Forest Ecology Workshop at
Utah State University and is now published in the scientific journal.
4.3 Discussion
The above discussion suggests that environmental effects of the electromagnetic fields associated with
major electrical technologies are few, generally minor in nature, and confined to the vicinity of high-powered
sources. The extent of other environmental impacts is beyond the scope of this review.
However, it is clear that major gaps in knowledge exist, and the available literature on the subject is
scattered and highly variable in quality. Environmental impact analyses of major projects, which are generally
commissioned by sponsors of the projects, are generally limited to literature reviews (often focusing narrowly on
human health concerns). Much less frequently (e.g. with fields from high voltage power lines), laboratory
experimentation or ecological assessment have been undertaken.
Two major conclusions emerge from the above review. First, there are few documented environmental
effects from the electromagnetic fields produced by electrical technologies, and the established effects are
apparently of local and minor significance. Second, attempts at environmental analysis of the effects of
environmental EMF, with few exceptions, have been scattered in focus, sporadic in publication, and uneven in
quality. The major exception appears to be studies in search of environmental effects of fields associated with
high voltage power lines, where numerous studies have been undertaken around the world.

59
Chapter 5
Harmful health effects for using mobile phones or
Living near base stations
5.1 Introduction
There are currently 600 million cellular phone users and the number is expected to increase to 800 million by the
year 2005. With the tremendous growth of cell phone use, numerous reports have been issued regarding their
potential health hazards. These range from headaches, noise in the ears, and stress to scarier reports of
memory loss, DNA damage and cancer.
Although there is not conclusive evidence that RF EMF is harmful, in 1998, cellular phone manufacturers applied
for patents to reduce the level of microwave emissions and develop new equipment designed to minimize the
health risks associated with using the cell phone. This can be seen as an admission that cell phones pose a
health risk and lawyers claim that the admission will pave the way for civil suits against manufacturers.
Figure 5.1: Cell Phone and Base station.

60
Most recently, in 1999, a study conducted by Wireless Technology Research (WTR) and funded by the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) showed a correlation between a higher evidence of brain
cancer, greater risk of neurological tumors, and DNA damage amongst cell phone users versus users of other
types of phones. (WTR is an organization that was established in 1993 to address health risks from wireless
communications technology and is funded by the CTIA.) Despite these findings, CTIA maintains that cellular
phones are safe and meet the standards adopted by the U.S. government. There reasons being that these
findings were just a few among a far greater number of studies showing no effects.
Every cell phone sold in the U.S. has a SAR rating which measures how much microwave energy can penetrate
the brain. However, according to an ABC TV‟s 20/20 news report, government safety standards are vague
because certain phones pass the FCC safety requirement when held in one position and failed when in another.
Scientists have found that up to 70% of cell phone EMF is absorbed by and actually penetrates the brain.
Government and industry should implement fund more research and implement more precautionary public
health standards. For example, in Switzerland, the government recently approved precautionary rules for cell
phone exposure. The restrictions set limits for cell phone power level emissions that are substantially lower than
US standards.
5.2 Mobile phones
Cell phones have been referred to as “the biggest domestic appliance source of radiation ever invented.” This is
the first time in human existence that people have wandered around with radiating devices held close to their
body. Cell phones operate in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) in the microwave band, which are maximally
absorbed by human tissue. Some researchers think that a worse frequency could not have been chosen for the
emerging technology regarding the human body. Cell phones emit EMF from the entire surface of the phone.
These waves penetrate user‟s brains. (The human brain is somewhat protected by a thick skull comprised of
calcium except for the ear canal.)
Regardless of the terminology (Modes) used to characterize cellular technology (PCS, TDMA, CDMA, GSM,
GPRS, Cellular, Digital, Analog, etc.), at this time there are only two frequency ranges available to US carriers.
(1) 824 - 896 MHz

(2) 1.85 -1.99 GHz

61
Figure 5.2: Using Mobile Phone.
From all the evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown to
occur from exposure to the signals produced by mobile phones and base station transmitters. However studies
have mainly involved looking at cancer and cancer-related topics. Among other studies being planned are
prospective cohort studies of children and adolescent mobile phone users and studies of health outcomes other
than brain cancer including more general health outcomes such as cognitive effects and sleep quality. The only
established adverse health effect associated with mobile phones is with traffic accidents. Research has clearly
demonstrated an increase in the risk of traffic accidents when mobile phones (either hand held or with a hands-
free kit) are used while driving. To function, a mobile phone must communicate by radio signals with a nearby
base station. A mobile phone call from Ireland to a mobile phone in Australia is made up of two local wireless
connections: a call to the nearest base station in Ireland plus a second call from the base station in Australia
nearest to the other mobile phone. The worldwide communications network links the two base stations. Each of
the 4500 base stations in Ireland is at the centre of a cell. Each cell in turn can handle a limited number of
concurrent phone calls.

62
Figure 5.3: Mobile phone base station.

Adjoining cells use slightly different frequencies to prevent interference. However because there are only a
limited number of frequencies available for mobile telephony they must be reused in other cells. To do this no
immediately adjacent cells use the same frequencies. Because of the limited number of calls that can be
handled by a base station at one time, the number of base stations in a given area has to be increased to
accommodate greater mobile phone use. As a result, the signal strength from base stations and mobile phones
will be reduced. Moreover, signals between the base station and the phone constantly adjust to the lowest level
necessary for efficient operation.
5.3 Mobile phone use
Mobile phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In some parts of the world they are the
only reliable phones available. In Ireland their popularity is due to the ease with which they provide continuous
communication without inhibiting freedom of movement. Worldwide, the number
of people using mobile phones is approaching two billion. In Ireland, over four million mobile phones are now in
use. Without base stations these phones could not function.
5.3.1 Exposure characteristics of mobile phones
A person‟s exposure to a mobile phone is measured in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). This is a
measure of the rate of energy deposition in a person‟s body during a call and is expressed in watts per kilogram
(W/kg). The SAR varies depending on the distance to the nearest base station and whether there are RF signal
absorbing obstacles between the caller and the base station, such as buildings, tunnels etc. The SAR exposure
from the mobile phone will be highest when the base station is distant and/or the user is in a building or a
stationary vehicle that impedes the phone signal. The phone

63
will then operate with maximum signal strength. All phones are provided with details of the maximum SAR
they will produce when operating under such conditions. The SAR values are all measured in exactly the same
way in EU approved laboratories to ensure the values obtained are accurate and comparable.
SAR values for the most widely used phones range from 0.1 to 1.2 W/kg. The maximum SAR levels for exposure
of the general public recommended in the 1999 Recommendation of the EU Council
of Health Ministers (EU, 1999) are compared to the typical mobile phone SARs in Box 3.2.
Table 5.1: Typical mobile phone SAR
5.3.2 Exposure characteristics of phone masts
Unlike mobile phones, where the user‟s exposure to RF fields is localized to that part of the body closest to the
phone antenna, a person‟s whole body is exposed to the RF emissions from phone mast antennas (base
station). Exposure to a mobile phone base station is measured in terms of power density. This is a measure of
the rate at which RF energy is reaching a person from that base station. The unit of power density is „watt per
square meter‟ (W/m2). The actual exposure of an individual depends on the height of the transmitting antennas
on the mast, the power output and gain of the antennas, the direction of the beam, and the distance of the
individual from the antennas. On a typical phone mast the antennas are mounted at the top of a triangular metal
lattice tower 20 to 30 meters in height. Antennas can also be found mounted on shorter platforms on the roofs of
buildings. The power input to the antennas is of the order of 20 to 30 W. The antennas shape and emit the radio
signals into a narrow beam that is directed downwards at an angle of between 5 and 10 degrees. The peak
exposure at ground level is typically found 50 to 300 meters from the base of the tower, depending on its height,
and whether the ground is flat and there are no intervening buildings or other barriers. Because there can be
many obstacles to the beam, especially in urban areas, the calculation of public exposures to base stations is
complex. It is usually simpler to determine the strength of the RF field from a phone mast by direct
measurement, although several measurements are generally required before the highest field strength and its
location are identified.

64
Public exposures in the vicinity of 400 phone masts in Ireland were measured in 2004 and 2005 (ComReg,
2004). Measurements rarely exceeded 0.01 W/m2 and more often were around 0.001 W/m2 or less. The
maximum allowable public exposure levels (EU, 1999) are hundreds to thousands of times greater than this –
4.5 W/m2 at 900 MHz Only by approaching the phone mast antennas to within a few meters and within the main
beam is it possible to exceed this limit. Such access should be prevented by barriers or other means.
5.3.3 Health concerns of mobile phones in general
Given the large number of phone users, even small adverse effects on health could have major public health
implications. Although public exposure to RF fields from mobile phones are within the EU limits, these exposures
are still much higher than those previously experienced by the general public. This has
led public health authorities and the World Health Organization to promote research into the possible adverse
health effects of mobile phones. The INTERPHONE study (http://www.iarc. fr/ENG/ nits/ RCA4.php) is a leading
example. RF fields penetrate tissues to depths that depend on the frequency. At mobile phone frequencies the
RF energy is absorbed to a depth in tissue of about one centimeter. RF
energy absorbed by the body is converted into heat that is carried away by the body. All established adverse
health effects are caused by heating. While RF energy can interact with tissues at levels that do not cause
significant heating, there is no consistent evidence of adverse health effects at exposures
below the international guideline limits.
5.3.4 Health concerns of mobile phones and cancer
Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields emitted by mobile phones is unlikely to induce,
progress or promote cancer. Several studies of animals exposed to RF fields similar to those emitted by mobile
phones found no evidence that RF causes or promotes brain cancer. The INTERPHONE study is a major
epidemiological study to determine if there is any relationship between mobile phone use and tumors in the
head. It is being co-ordinate by WHO‟s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and involves 14
studies conducted in 13 countries, all using an identical study protocol. Nothing untoward has emerged from the
results published so far, although reports of an increased incidence of acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor of the
acoustic nerve) among people who have been using mobile phones for more than ten years will require further
investigation. However this result was not confirmed in a recent study conducted in Denmark. An analysis of a
set of Swedish studies conducted by the same investigators suggests an association between mobile phone use
and brain tumors, but these studies have been criticized to the extent that the results they have produced are not
convincing. Other recent epidemiological studies have found no convincing evidence of an increase in the risk of
cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones.

65
5.3.5 Health concerns of mobile phones and other health risks
Some scientists have reported other effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction
times, sleep patterns and self-reported well-being. These effects are small and have no clear health significance.
More studies are in progress to try to confirm these findings. Driving while using a mobile phone is a proven
cause of traffic accidents. The use of a hands-free kit does not significantly reduce the risk. (IEPGM, 2000)
When mobile phones are used close to some medical devices such as pacemakers, implanted defibrillators and
certain kinds of hearing aid, there is a possibility of causing interference. There is also a possibility of such
interference with aircraft guidance systems. These concerns are gradually being overcome with better design to
stop this equipment being interfered with by RF signals.
5.3.6 Health concerns - phone masts in general
A concern among the public about base stations is that whole body exposure to the RF signals they emit may
have long-term health effects. To date the only acute health effects from RF fields have been confined to
occupational over-exposures in industrial situations. No public exposure falls into this category. Phone mast
exposures are broadly similar to or below those from radio and television stations that have been broadcasting
worldwide for over sixty years. (WHO, 2006) Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals
exposed to RF fields from base stations because of the difficulty distinguishing their very low signals from other
higher strength RF sources in the environment. Paging and other communications antennas such as those used
by the fire, Gardaí, and emergency services operate at similar or higher power levels than base stations. Some
individuals report non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields from base stations. As recognized in a
recent WHO fact sheet (WHO, 2005), EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless it is
important to recognize the plight of people suffering from them.
5.3.7 Health concerns of phone masts and cancer
There have been media reports of cancer clusters around base stations that have heightened public concern.
Generally, cancers are distributed unevenly among any population (National Cancer Registry of USA, 2005).
Given the large number of base stations and their distribution around centers of population
it can be predicted that some concentrations of cancer or other diseases will occur in the vicinity of a base
station. This does not mean that the base station is the cause of the cancer cluster. Investigations of such
clusters often show that there is a collection of different types of disease with no common characteristic or
cause.

66
Over the past 15 years, several epidemiological studies have examined the potential relationship
between RF transmitters and cancer (NRPB, 2004; WHO, 2005; HCN, 2005). These studies have as yet
provided no evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise animal
studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are
much higher than those produced by base stations.
5.4 Discussion
It remains unclear to what extent the long-term use of a mobile phone is related to the occurrence of acoustic
neuroma because one study has identified an association and another has not. Further, if the association is real,
this appears to relate only to the use of the older analogue phones and not the currently used digital types such
as GSM phones. There is some evidence from one series of studies of an association between brain tumors and
mobile phone use but these studies have been the subject of considerable criticism. For both types of tumor the
results of the INTERPHONE study and the pooled analysis of these results by IARC, which will be available in
2007, will provide a more reliable picture. While there is no evidence that mobile phones are detrimental to
health, the UK NRPB (2004) endorsed the recommendation of the Stewart report (IEGMP, 2000) that the use of
mobile phones by children be limited. In the Netherlands, however, the Health Council saw no reason to
recommend that mobile phone use by children over the age of two be restricted (HCN, 2002; 2005). The
question of whether living in the proximity of a base station is associated with an increased risk of developing an
illness concerns many of the people who find themselves in this situation. However, considering the very low
exposure levels and the scientific evidence available to date, it appears highly unlikely that the weak signals
people are exposed to from base stations could cause cancer or any other adverse health effects (WHO, 2006)
5.5 Problem arise by Children use the mobile phones and phone masts be
Located near places where children gather
5.5.1 Children and Mobile phone
There is no data available to suggest that the use of mobile phones by children is a health hazard. The time in
children‟s development that might make them particularly vulnerable to RF exposures to the head is when they
are aged two years and younger. In the UK and Sweden the authorities recommend a precautionary approach to
either minimize use (essential calls only) or minimize exposure (use a hands-free kit). In the Netherlands the use
of mobile phones by children is not considered a problem.
16

67
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields said that there is no established scientific basis
or evidence of adverse health effects affecting children or adults as a result of their exposure to mobile phone
base stations. This applies irrespective of the location of the phone mast.
The question concerning health hazards that might be faced by children using mobile phones was first raised in
the UK by the Stewart report (IEGMP, 2000). While the Stewart report concluded that the balance of evidence
suggested that exposure to RF below the international guidance levels does not cause adverse health effects in
the general population, it did recommend that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non essential
calls should be discouraged. The reason given for this recommendation was put in these terms:
“If there are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more
vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the
head and a longer time of exposure.”
The UK Government accepted this recommendation and directed its Chief Medical Officer to liaise with the
Stewart Committee to determine how best to achieve its aim. The publicity surrounding publication of the Stewart
report, and particularly its recommendation concerning children‟s use of mobile phones, led to investigations of
the various assumptions implicit in the rationale for the Stewart report recommendation
quoted above. The key questions were:
Are there unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones?
Does the development of children‟s nervous systems at the ages when they might begin to use mobile
phones make them more vulnerable than adults?
Does a child‟s head absorb a greater proportion of the RF energy from mobile phones than an adult
head?
There was also the concern that if there were long term health effects, the earlier one starts using a mobile
phone, the longer will be the lifetime exposure to its fields, and so the greater the opportunity for harm. Since the
publication of the Stewart report in May 2000, a substantial amount of research work relevant to children‟s
exposure to RF sources has been completed and more is ongoing. Among the organizations that have devoted
considerable effort to appraise and interpret this work, are the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI), the
Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN), the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and WHO.
The most recent Swedish review (SSI, 2006) concluded that work on cognitive functions in volunteers (including
children) exposed to RF fields had been negative; but methodological limitations in the studies prevented firm
conclusions being drawn. However they were able to conclude that there was enough evidence to show that
exposure to GSM mobile phones did not affect hearing. The results of two epidemiological studies from the

68
INTERPHONE project suggested that there was no increased risk of brain tumours from either short term
or long term use of mobile phones, although data on long term use was sparse. However, there was a concern
over the association of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the acoustic nerve, with long term use.
The Swedish position, as reflected in the report of SSI‟s Independent Expert Group (SSI, 2004) is that
widespread exposure of children to mobile phones is recent and that not enough is known about the potential
sensitivity of children. The absence of an observed effect does not necessarily mean that
exposure is harmless, especially when crucial studies focusing on children are yet to be done. The SSI therefore
adopted a precautionary approach (SSI, 2004):
“The existing knowledge gaps and the prevailing scientific uncertainty justify a certain precautionary attitude
regarding the use of handsets for mobile telephony. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones even a very
small risk could have consequences for public health. Because of the lack of knowledge in certain fields of
research the Nordic authorities find it wise to use, for instance, a hands-free kit that reduces exposure to the
head significantly. This information should be addressed to adults, young people and children. It is important that
parents inform young people and children about how to reduce the exposure from mobile phones.”
The Electromagnetic Fields Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands publishes regular reviews and
assessments of scientific literature relating to the EMF – health issue. In regard to children‟s exposure to mobile
phones the most recent review (HCN, 2005) referred to its 2002 advisory report on “Mobile telephones: a health-
based analysis” (HCN, 2002) where the Health Council had stated that there is no reason, based on the existing
data concerning the development of the head and brain in children, to suppose that there are still significant
differences in sensitivity compared with adults after two years of age. In that 2002 report, the Health Council
concluded that it saw no reason to recommend that the use of mobile phones by children over two years of age
should be limited on account of the available scientific evidence on possible health effects of exposure to
electromagnetic fields. The Health Council continues to endorse this position.
The Board of the UK NRPB revisited the Stewart report in 2004 to review progress on implementing Stewart‟s
recommendations and provide further advice to address public concerns about mobile phone technology (NRPB,
2004). The Board concluded that in the absence of new scientific.
17
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields evidence, the recommendation in the Stewart report
on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure. They
recommended that the use by children of phones for non-essential calls should be discouraged. Text messaging
and hands-free kits were seen as good ways for children to reduce their exposure.
The main initiative of the WHO International EMF Project concerning children and EMF was the expert workshop
held in Istanbul in June 2004 (WHO, 2004). This workshop dealt with the development of the embryo, foetus,

69
and child, with particular attention to the development of the brain. It also examined childhood susceptibility
to environmental agents and childhood diseases implicated in EMF studies, and their exposure to EMF. The
main outputs of the workshop were the publication of the presentations (BEMS, 2005), a summary of its findings
(Kheifets et al, 2005), and recommendations for an RF
research programme specially addressed to children‟s exposure (WHO, 2005). It will be a few years before the
results of this research become available.
5.5.2 Children and Mobile phone -Discussion

Recent expert analysis has concluded that there are no major effects due to focusing of the RF field in the head
or to other properties of a child‟s head that might result in higher absorption of RF energy (Christ and Kuster,
2005; Keshvari and Lang, 2005). Even though children are using mobile phones at a younger and younger age
there are few users under the school age of five. Children tend to use their phones for sending texts rather than
voice calls; this reduces their exposure. The use of hands-free kits also reduces exposures but these are not
popular among children. Three expert groups have reviewed the question of whether there should be restrictions
on children using mobile phones. Two have recommended that there should be some restrictions, while one has
suggested that it would make no difference. Given this disagreement it seems prudent to suggest that mobile
phone use should be limited in younger children. However, there is no specific scientific justification for this
advice.
5.5.3 Children and base stations
It is common for the public to object to proposals to build phone masts in their neighborhood. When the proposal
involves the phone mast being located near a school or crèche or health centre or indeed anywhere children
gather the number of objections will usually increase. In Ireland there are 4500 base stations in an area of just
over 70,000 km2. If these masts were evenly distributed geographically no one would be more than 2.5 km from
a mast. However because the distribution of masts reflects the distribution of the population, in urban areas no
one is likely to be more than a kilometer from the nearest mast. This can be confirmed by accessing the
Communications Regulator‟s website www.ComReg.ie. It is clear that it is no longer possible for anyone,
including children, to live anywhere in Ireland and
not be exposed to the RF fields emitted by phone masts. However it is equally the case that there is nowhere in
Ireland where a child is not exposed to the RF fields produced by local, national and international radio and
television broadcasting stations. Indeed there are now few adults who have not been exposed to radio broadcast
all of their lives. Furthermore the fields from TV and radio stations are usually stronger than those from mobile
phone masts. One reason for the absence of concern regarding radio and TV is that broadcasting transmitters
are more powerful than base station phone masts, so fewer of them are required to cover an area.However over
500 transmitters are still required to provide national
70
TV coverage explanation is that radio and TV transmitters are generally located on high ground that
is usually unpopulated. in the case of the most powerful transmitters exclusion areas are employed to restrict
public access from the areas where the RF fields might exceed international guideline limits. The levels of public
exposure to phone masts are usually thousands and often tens of thousands times below the international limits.
The highest exposures at ground level are found some 50 m to 300 m from the phone mast. Fields at ground
level at the site and within 50 m of the mast are generally lower than those at 200 m to 300 m distance. National
and international health advisory authorities have concluded that exposure to base station phone masts is not
associated with adverse health effects. The position is summarized in a conclusion of the Stewart report
(IEGMP, 2000):
“The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base
stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”
The fact that exposures are very small fractions of the internationally accepted guidelines of ICNIRP has been
demonstrated by the Communications Regulator‟s “400 Site Survey” (ComReg, 2004). The WHO workshop on
children‟s exposure to EMF (WHO, 2004) also concluded that from the low exposures and the scientific evidence
collected to date, it appeared highly unlikely that the weak signals to which people are exposed from base
stations could cause cancer or any other adverse health effects. This was explained in the WHO fact sheet on
mobile phone base stations and wireless networks
(WHO, 2006).
5.5.4 Children and base stations – Discussion
There is no scientific basis for, or evidence of, adverse health effects affecting either children or adults as a
result of their exposure to RF fields from phone masts. This applies irrespective of the location of the phone
mast. While the maximum exposures from a phone mast will occur at some distance from the mast, and not in its
immediate vicinity nor underneath it, the exposures are so low as to make it immaterial where masts are located
with respect to schools, playgrounds, health centers or other places where children gather.
The foregoing statements are not in accord with the positions adopted by some members of the public over
what are suitable and unsuitable places to locate phone masts. The public can have legitimate concerns over
the physical appearance of such masts in their neighborhood. It is also true that some will
be worried about the possible effects the mast may have on the health of their family, but the scientific evidence
does not support their concerns

71
Chapter 6
Health and environmental impacts of disposing equipment’s waste
6.1 Introduction
In general, computer equipment is a complicated assembly of more than 1,000 materials, many of which are
highly toxic. According to some estimates there is hardly any other product for which the sum of the
environmental impacts of raw material, extraction, industrial, refining and production, use and disposal is as
extensive as for printed circuit boards. In short, the product developers of electronic products are introducing
chemicals on a scale which is totally incompatible with the scant knowledge of their environmental or biological
characteristics. The health impacts of the mixtures and material combinations in the products often are not
known. The ICT product makes problem when it was unused that‟s thrown to the environment and makes many
problem. As the figure 6.1 shown.
Figure 6.1: ICT a part of the problem.
The production of semiconductors, printed circuit boards, disk drives and monitors uses particularly hazardous
chemicals, and workers involved in chip manufacturing are now beginning to come forward and reporting cancer
clusters. In addition, new evidence is emerging that computer recyclers have high levels of dangerous chemicals
in their blood.

72
Figure 6.2: Life cycle Assessment Study.
An example of a personal computer and its material that‟s impact shown below.
6.2 Scientific measurements and reports
Compositionoa DesktopPersonal Computer

Based on a typical desktop computer, weighing ~60 lbs.

73
Table presented in: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC).1996.

Electronics Industry Environmental Roadmap. Austin, TX: MCC.
Name Content Weight of Recycling

(% of total material in Efficiency Use/Location
weight) computer (lbs.) (current
recyclability)
Plastics 22.9907 13.8 20% includes organics, oxides other than
silica
Lead 6.2988 3.8 5% metal joining, radiation shield/CRT,
PWB
Aluminum 14.1723 8.5 80% structural, conductivity/housing,
CRT, PWB,
connectors
Germanium 0.0016 < 0.1 0% Semiconductor/PWB
Gallium 0.0013 < 0.1 0% Semiconductor/PWB
Iron 20.4712 12.3 80% structural,
magnetivity/(steel) housing, CRT,
PWB
Tin 1.0078 0.6 70% metal joining/PWB, CRT
Copper 6.9287 4.2 90% Conductivity/CRT, PWB, connectors

Barium 0.0315 < 0.1 0% in vacuum tube/CRT
Nickel 0.8503 0.51 80% structural, magnetivity/(steel)
housing,
CRT, PWB
Zinc 2.2046 1.32 60% battery, phosphor emitter/PWB, CRT
Tantalum 0.0157 < 0.1 0% Capacitors/PWB, power supply
Indium 0.0016 < 0.1 60% transistor, rectifiers/PWB
Vanadium 0.0002 < 0.1 0% red phosphor emitter/CRT
Terbium 0 0 0% green phosphor activator,
dopant/CRT, PWB
Beryllium 0.0157 < 0.1 0% thermal conductivity/PWB,
connectors
Gold 0.0016 < 0.1 99% Connectivity, conductivity/PWB,

74
connectors
Europium 0.0002 < 0.1 0% phosphor activator/PWB
Titanium 0.0157 < 0.1 0% pigment, alloying agent/(aluminum)
housing
Ruthenium 0.0016 < 0.1 80% resistive circuit/PWB
Cadmium 0.0094 < 0.1 0% battery, glu-green phosphor
emitter/housing, PWB, CRT
Selenium 0.0016 0.00096 70% rectifiers/PWB
Niobium 0.0002 < 0.1 0% welding allow/housing
Yttrium 0.0002 < 0.1 0% red phosphor emitter/CRT
Rhodium 0 50% thick film conductor/PWB
Platinum 0 95% thick film conductor/PWB
Mercury 0.0022 < 0.1 0% batteries, switches/housing, PWB
Arsenic 0.0013 < 0.1 0% doping agents in transistors/PWB
Silica 24.8803 15 0% glass, solid state devices/CRT,PWB
Table 6.1: Typical desktop computer‟s equipments impacts and recycling effiency.
6.3 Risks related to some e-toxics found in computers
Lead
Lead can cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, blood system and kidneys in humans.
Effects on the endocrine system have also been observed and its serious negative effects on children‟s brain
development have been well documented. Lead accumulates in the environment and has high acute and chronic
toxic effects on plants, animals and microorganisms.
Cadmium
Cadmium compounds are classified as toxic with a possible risk of irreversible effects on human health.
Cadmium and cadmium compounds accumulate in the human body, in particular in kidneys. Cadmium is
absorbed through respiration but is also taken up with food.

75
Mercury
When inorganic mercury spreads out in the water, it is transformed to methylated mercury in the bottom
sediments. Methylated mercury easily accumulates in living organisms and concentrates through the food chain
particularly via fish. Methylated mercury causes chronic damage to the brain.
Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium VI)
Chromium VI can easily pass through membranes of cells and is easily absorbed producing various toxic effects
within the cells. It causes strong allergic reactions even in small concentrations. Asthmatic bronchitis is another
allergic reaction linked to chromium VI. Chromium VI may also cause DNA damage.
PVC
The use of PVC in computers has been mainly used in cabling and computer housings, although most computer
moldings are now being made of ABS plastic. PVC cabling is used for its fire retardant properties, but there are
concerns that once alight, fumes from PVC cabling can be a major contributor to fatalities and hence there are
pressures to switch to alternatives for safety reasons. Such alternatives are low-density polyethylene and
thermoplastic olefins.
Brominated Flame Retardants

Brominated flame-retardants are a class of brominated chemicals commonly used in electronic products as a
means for reducing flammability.
In computers, they are used mainly in four applications: in printed circuit boards, in components such as
connectors, in plastic covers and in cables. Various scientific observations indicate that Polybrominated
Diphenylethers (PBDE) might act as endocrine disrupters..
Research has revealed that levels of PBDEs in human breast milk are doubling every five years and this has
prompted concern because of the effect of these chemicals in young animals.
Other studies have shown PBDE, like many halogenated organics, reduce levels of the hormone thyroxin in
exposed animals and have been shown to cross the blood brain barrier in the developing fetus.
Thyroid is an essential hormone needed to regulate the normal development of all animal species, including
humans.

76
6.4 The Hazards of Incinerating Computer Junk
Figure 6.3: Extraction of material Normal process(burning).
The stream of Waste from Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) contributes significantly to the heavy
metals and halogenated substances contained in the municipal waste stream. Because of the variety of different
substances found together in electroscrap, incineration is particularly dangerous.
For instance, copper is a catalyst for dioxin formation when flame-retardants are incinerated.
This is of particular concern as the incineration of brominated flame retardants at a low temperature (600-800°C)
may lead to the generation of extremely toxic polybrominated dioxins (PBDDs) and furans (PBDFs)
6.5 The Hazards of Land filling Computer Junk

It has become common knowledge that all landfills leak. Even the best "state of the art" landfills are not
completely tight throughout their lifetimes and a certain amount of chemical and metal leaching will occur. The
situation is far worse for older or less stringent dump sites. Mercury will leach when certain electronic devices,
such as circuit breakers are destroyed. Not only has the leaching of mercury posed specific problems. The
vaporization of metallic mercury and dim ethylene mercury, both part of WEEE, is also of concern.The same is
true for PCBs from condensers. When brominates flame retarded plastic or cadmium containing plastics are land
filled, both PBDE and the cadmium may leach into the soil and groundwater. It has been found that significant
amounts of lead ions are dissolved from broken lead containing glass, such as the cone glass of cathode ray

77
tubes, when mixed with acid waters which commonly occur in landfills. In addition, uncontrolled fires may
arise at the landfills and this could be a frequent occurrence in many countries.
When exposed to fire, metals and other chemical substances, such as the extremely toxic dioxins and furans
(TCDD -Tetrachloride-dibenzo-dioxin, PCDDs, PBDDs and PCDFs - polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins
and furans) from halogenated flame retardant products and PCB containing condensers can be emitted.
6.6 The Hazards of Recycling Computer Junk
Recycling of hazardous products has little environmental benefit – it simply moves the hazards into secondary
products that eventually have to be disposed of. Unless the goal is to redesign the product to use non-hazardous
materials, such recycling is a false solution.
Figure 6.4: Extraction of material scientific process.
Recycling of hazardous products has little environmental benefit – it simply moves the hazards into secondary
products that eventually have to be disposed of. Unless the goal is to redesign the product to use non-hazardous
materials, such recycling is a false solution.

78
Chapter 7
Impact of ICT in Agriculture and Food Production
7.1 Introduction
ICT have bad impact to agriculture and food production. In the modern times the crop performance are reduced
for the electromagnetic field and toxicity of the crop field are caused by ICT equipment. In the modern times the
base station of cellular mobile phone covers the country-wide area that is the source of EMF to the crop field. In
recent research there discovered that the genotoxic impact on the grain from birth.
7.2 Effects on plants under controlled laboratory conditions
Several authors have reported an enhancement of seed germination from exposure to DC or ELF magnetic
fields of about 50 μT (Jones and McLeod 1996; Phirke et al. 1996). The mechanisms for this reported effect are
not understood, and other investigators have been unable to confirm the findings (Potts et al. 1997). A few
studies have reported increased germination of seeds in ELF electric fields in the range of 1 – 100 kV/m (Morar
et al. 1995; Zhang and Hashinaga 1997).
7.3 Crop performance

Several field studies have been conducted in the US and Europe, in which crops are grown beneath high
voltage transmission lines in ELF electric fields up to 12.5 kV/m (Soja 2000).
These studies reported small, if any effects. For example, in a four-year study, Soja et al. (Soja et al. 1999)
compared the growth of winter wheat and corn in plots of varying distance from a 380 kV transmission line,
exposed to electric fields up to 3.9 kV/m and flux densities up to 4.5 μT. The investigators found “some evidence
for some physiological reactions in response to the effects of field strength”. However, the variations were not
statistically significant, showed no apparent relation to the field strength, and were comparable to small-scale
effects due to differences in soil texture between the plots. Thus, if the study did uncover effects of
environmental EMF at these levels, they were minor in nature.
At electric field strengths above 20 kV/m, clear damage occurs to the tips of plant leaves due to corona (Johnson
et al. 1979). Rogers et al. (Rogers et al. 1981) noted changes in the growth rates of trees (oak, Douglas fir)
grown near a 1100 kV test line in field strengths up to 123 kV/m. The changes were associated with visible
79
corona at the tips of the leaves. Other effects include delayed leaf senescence and leaf shedding in plants
close to the line.
7.4 Effects on honeybees
Bee hives located near high voltage power lines in fields as low as 4 kV/m produce less honey and have higher
mortality rates among bees. The effect is apparently due to electrical shocks that the bees receive when they
contact surfaces in the hives (Carstensen 1987).
7.5 Effects on animals
A variety of studies have exposed animals (rats, swine, and cattle) to strong ELF fields under laboratory
conditions. For example, Anderson et al. exposed animals to 60 Hz electric fields ranging upwards to 150 kV/m
and magnetic flux densities ranging to 30 mT (Anderson 2000). Anderson concluded that “most indices of
general physiological status appear to be relatively unaffected by exposures to EMF”. These studies did report a
variety of effects, particularly at the higher field levels, including avoidance of the fields and indications of stress
responses in the exposed animals. The “stray voltage” problem on farms occurs because of an unbalanced
power distribution systems or other electrical problems, which results in voltages being induced across bodies of
cattle when they contact nominally grounded surfaces (for example milking machines). This can lead to
behavioral or physiological changes in the animals and reduced their growth.
Milk production (Lefcourt 1991; Surbrook and Reese 1981). The problem would seem manageable by
proper installation of electrical systems. However, there has been little research in this area, and few articles
have appeared on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Power lines present hazards to birds, either from electrocution when they fly into the lines or by impact
when they hit the lines or supporting structures. One author has suggested that birds of some endangered
species are particularly vulnerable (Bevanger 1998). While this is not an effect of the EMF per se, it is a potential
environmental impact of the technology that needs to be considered.

80
7.6 Effect of ICT in coastal area of Bangladesh
Figure 7.1: Farmer shows empty grain of paddy field.
However water less green coconut are seen in coastal area of Bangladesh, that‟s may be effect of genetically
changes of coconut. Flower is seen without smell. In there the recent on paddy field the production is decreased
that‟s may be genetically effect of EMF on paddy plant.

81
Chapter 8
Present status of expert opinion on EMF health effects
8.1 Introduction
At this point in time, a large volume of literature on the question of EMF health effects has been generated,
representing the accumulation of many years of laboratory work and many years of human experience with
EMF. The scientific data on EMF and health have been assembled and reviewed by many independent
consensus groups of research and health scientists. These groups and agencies include the World Health
Organization, the National Radiation Protection Board (UK), the National Academy of Sciences, the American
Medical Association, the American Physical Society (the professional society for American physicists), the
American Cancer Society, the Swedish National Health and Welfare Board, and others. The reports of these
groups are voluminous, thorough, and even-handed. Some of the conclusions are given below. These “blue-
ribbon” panels did not identify EMF from any type of electric-power transmission line as unsafe for nearby
residents and public.
8.2 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 1996
In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the scientific literature regarding EMF effects on
health. The NAS concluded that power-line EMF was not a human health hazard, stating:
“Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric
and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that
the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard.
Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic
fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.”

82
8.3 National Cancer Institute Report in 1997
In 1997, the National Cancer Institute completed a comprehensive epidemiologic study, published in the New
England Journal of Medicine (Martha Linet and collaborators). This study tried to replicate earlier (smaller)
studies showing an association of childhood leukemia with utility wire configurations outside the home. The
authors concluded that their study of 1,258 children showed no EMF effect: “Our results provide little evidence
that living in homes characterized by high measured time-weighted average magnetic field levels, or by the
highest wire-code category increases the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children.”
8.4 The World Health Organization review in 1998
The World Health Organization (1998) published a review of EMF health effects; they concluded that additional
topic areas for research could be suggested, but that currently available evidence was not persuasive of a health
effect:
“It was concluded that, while health hazards exist from exposures to ELF at high field strengths, the literature
does not establish that health hazards are associated with exposure to low-level (environmental) fields.” [High
field strengths would be upwards of 50,000 mG, whereas power-line fields are generally less than 100 mG.] The
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998) proposed a “reference level” of allowable
continuous EMF exposure for the general public of 830 mG (which is an order of magnitude higher than typical
EMF exposure from electric-power lines).
8.5 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 1999
The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (1999) evaluated the scientific and technical
content of research projects conducted under the “U.S. EMF RAPID Program,” and concluded that:
“Results of the EMF-RAPID program do not support the contention that the use of electricity poses a major
unrecognized public-health danger.”
“No finding from the EMF-RAPID program alters the conclusions of the previous NRC review on the Possible
Effects of [EMF] on Biologic Systems (NRC 1997). In view of the negative outcomes of EMF-RAPID replication
studies, it now appears even less likely that [EMF] in the normal domestic or occupational environment
produce[s] important health effects, including cancer.”
83
The report “recommends that no further special research program focused on possible health effects of power-
frequency magnetic fields be funded.”... “Unless a biologic effect that can be used to plan the studies” is
identified.
8.6 The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences review in 1999
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1999) has announced that, after six years of
accelerated EMF research, the evidence for a risk of cancer and other human disease from the electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) around power lines is “weak.”
“[EMF] exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may
pose a leukemia hazard. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide
sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant a concern.”
“Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in animals and humans, and most of the mechanistic studies in cells fail
to support a causal relationship.... The lack of consistent, positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies
weakens the belief that this association is actually due to [EMF] .”
8.7 Health Canada has provided the following statement on EMF (December 1999)
“For a power frequency of 60 Hz, there is at present no Canadian national standard for EMF exposure. We are
unsure of what levels of EMFs are safe or unsafe because the existing worldwide scientific evidence is not
sufficient to define a level of exposure that can affect human health.”
8.8 The Ministry of Health of the government of the province of British Columbia in
Canada has concluded that (March 2000)
“When the research to date is taken as a whole, the evidence does not support the assumption that fields
surrounding power lines, appliances, etc., pose a risk to human health. In recent years, larger, better designed
studies have provided firmer evidence that exposure to these fields does not increase the risk of childhood
cancer or produce other detrimental health effects.”

84
8.9 The American Cancer Society (ACS) conclusions on EMF are
“Electromagnetic radiation at frequencies below ionizing and ultraviolet levels has not been shown to cause
cancer. While some epidemiologic studies suggest associations with cancer, others do not, and experimental
studies have not yielded reproducible evidence of carcinogenic mechanisms. Low-frequency radiation includes
radio waves, microwaves, and radar, as well as power frequency radiation arising from the electric and magnetic
fields associated with electric currents (extremely low-frequency radiation).”
8.10 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields
No studies have established that EMF exposure leads to the subjective symptoms reported by EHS individuals.
Several studies have shown that while the symptoms reported by EHS sufferers are real, they are not linked to
EMF exposure. EHS sufferers do not experience worse symptoms when exposed to EMF fields. This response
does little to help those suffering the symptoms they attribute to EMF.
Among the experts present at the WHO‟s 2004 Prague workshop on hypersensitivity were a number of clinicians
who deal specifically with EHS patients in their medical practices. This group provided advice on the
characterization, diagnosis, management and treatment of EHS individuals (Hillert et al,
2004).Their advice is available to interested parties in Ireland. In February 2006 the Expert Group met
representatives of groups providing support and assistance to fellow sufferers from EHS. During the discussions
that followed, two things became very clear. The first was that the affected individuals were not imagining their
pain and suffering. The second was that all attributed their illness to exposure to EMF from one or more sources.
Many of the people they represented had taken extraordinary measures to reduce their exposure to the
particular fields they believed were the cause of their health problems. For some, a particular radio frequency,
which they claimed to be able to detect, was identified as the causal agent. The attribution of the illnesses to
exposure to EMF has generated widespread international concern since the first cases began to receive media
attention in 1987. The first major international study of electromagnetic hypersensitivity was commissioned by
the EU and included Irish medical participation in the expert team (Bergqvist et al, 1997). The aim of this study
was to determine the extent of EHS across Europe, to review the scientific literature on the subject, and provide
advice on better health protection for affected individuals. The study was unable to establish a relationship
between exposures.
to low frequency or high frequency EMF. In the absence of a common diagnosis for the condition it was difficult
to compare the reported incidence of the illness across Europe – the estimate of severe cases provided by Irish
self-aid groups, between 1000 and 10 000, was equalled only in Sweden. The study concluded that the limited
number of seriously affected individuals and the absence of evidence for EMF as a causal factor did not justify

85
public alarm but that substantial additional research was needed. And, indeed, the last ten years have seen
a great deal of high quality research on EHS.
The scientific findings concerning a possible link between exposure to EMF and EHS have been examined
recently by the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI, 2004), the Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN,
2005), and by WHO at a Prague Workshop (WHO, 2004) and in a recent WHO Fact Sheet (WHO, 2005). The
conclusions of these organizations have been broadly similar. EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific
symptoms, which affected individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced
include skin symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as more general symptoms (fatigue,
tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances).This
collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized medical syndrome. EHS resembles multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS): a collection of symptoms associated with low-level environmental exposures to chemicals.
Both EHS and MCS are characterized by non-specific symptoms that lack apparent toxicological or physiological
basis or independent verification. Studies on EHS can only be made on humans, and are either epidemiological
(observational) or experimental (provocation).
A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF levels similar to those
that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory
conditions. The majority of such studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more
accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that
symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure. It has been suggested that the symptoms experienced by
some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. There are also some indications
that these symptoms may be due to previous stressful life events, as well as to stress reactions as a result of
worrying about EMF health effects, rather than EMF exposure itself. The conclusion of WHO is that EHS is
characterised by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are
real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected
individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF
exposure. EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem (WHO,
2005).
19
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields an independent expert group set up by the Swedish
authorities (SSI, 2004) came to similar conclusions. In studies of ELF fields no EHS individuals were able to
detect electric or magnetic fields at levels that are comparable to those at which they claim
to react. Too few RF exposure studies had reported by 2004 to permit any firm conclusions to be made
concerning such exposure. However no study had, so far, been able to show a link between EMF and the
occurrence of symptoms.

86
8.11 How the EHS problem is dealt with in Sweden
The dilemma in dealing with EHS individuals is that while their symptoms are real and at times disabling, there is
no evidence to suggest that EMF exposure is the cause of their illness. So, what can be done?
In Sweden, where there appears to be a greater proportion of EHS than elsewhere, guidelines have been issued
by the National Board of Health and Welfare concerning the treatment of such patients. These are in the main
body of the report .The focus in Sweden is on the symptoms presented by the afflicted person and the right to
sick leave, sickness benefits, disability pension etc is based on the degree of ill health and functional handicap of
the person regardless of a known or unknown cause for the condition.
There is no standard medical treatment and since the clinical picture varies from case to case any
recommendation for interventions or treatment is based on a broad evaluation of each individual‟s situation,
including medical investigation, psychosocial situation and possible contributing environmental factors.
Treatments known to reduce the type of symptoms presented have been used in Sweden.
It is important that a good patient-doctor relationship is established and that a physician is available to offer
follow-up visits to ensure (after the initial examination aimed at excluding known medical conditions) that new
medical evaluations are made when required by a change in symptoms, for example. EHS has not been
accepted as a work injury in Sweden. In its most recent review (HCN, 2005) the Health Council of the
Netherlands concluded that there were no scientific grounds at present for supposing that physical complaints of
EHS can be directly caused by exposure to EMF. This has been further confirmed by a recent detailed review
and high quality study by Rubin et al (2005, 2006).

87
Chapter 9
A step in the right direction
9.1 Introduction
The European Union is developing a solution that will make producers responsible for taking back their old
products. This legislation – which includes "take-back" requirements and toxic materials phase-outs -- also
encourages cleaner product design and less waste generation. This is known as Extended Producer
Responsibility. The aim of EPR is to encourage producers to prevent pollution and reduce resource and energy
use in each stage of the product life cycle through changes in product design and process technology. This
includes upstream impacts arising from the choice of materials and from the manufacturing process as well as
the downstream impacts, i.e. from the use and disposal of products. However, product take-back needs to go
hand-in-hand with mandatory legislation to phase-out e-toxics.
9.2 Safety Guidelines Will Meet By Mobile Phone Base Station Antenna
Antenna sites should be designed so that the public cannot access areas that exceed the 1992 ANSI or FCC
guidelines for public exposure. As a general rule, the uncontrolled (public) exposure guideline cannot be
exceeded more than 8 meters (25 feet) from the radiating surface of the antenna.
Design cleaner products. Industry is making some progress to design cleaner products but we need to move
beyond pilot projects and ensure all products are upgradeable and non-toxic
9.3 Organized Responsibility

Various organizations and countries have developed standards for exposure to radiofrequency energy.
These standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
U.S Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF
safety standards
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

88
The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific Absorption
Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold level of exposure at which harmful
biological effects may occur.
9.4 Implementation of standards
Allocation of responsibility for measurements of field intensity and interpretation of results Establishment of
detailed field protection safety codes and guides for safe use Antennas placed on structures that require access
by workers. Note that the occupation safety standards for RF radiation apply only to workers with appropriate RF
radiation safety training. Towers that are placed very close to, and lower than, nearby buildings. If there are
areas that exceed the 1992 ANSI or FCC guidelines for controlled (occupational) exposure, make sure that
workers know where these areas are, and that they can (and do) power-down (or shut down) the transmitters
when entering these areas.
9.5 Safety will be assured when new technologies are introduced before their health
effects can be assessed
There are a large number of novel technologies being developed using RF signals for various purposes.
Examples include WiFi, Bluetooth, Ultra-wide Band, and others. All of these are assessed for safety by the
strength and frequency of their RF emissions. These emissions are then compared with the limits allowed in the
international standards. If the new technology emits fields less than these limits they are considered safe, and
vice-versa. Thus the advantage of having adopted international exposure limits is that they provide information
on safe levels of EMF exposure from any existing device or any device produced in the future, but also provides
manufacturers with the exposure limits within which they must manufacture their devices. Within the European
Union, devices having the “CE” mark are considered to be safe for their intended purpose.
The introduction of a new technology raises questions of a technical, legal, financial and moral nature:
Mobile wireless communications have existed since 1910 when they first began to be used on ships. The sinking
of Titanic in 1912 gave a huge boost to the Marconi company. without radio communication many more would
have perished that April night. Police, the armed forces and the emergency services have been using mobile
wireless telephony since the late 1930s. The technology at that time could never have had widespread
application among the general public for many reasons: the limited availability of radio frequency bands, the
weight of the transmitting and receiving equipment that had to be carried, and to avoid being overheard by
others with radio receivers one needed to transmit messages in code. Before the advent of the microchip, pocket
sized mobile phones were a dream from the pages of science fiction.

89
If one were to build a mobile phone with its present computing power using 1960s transistors one would
need a large truck in which to carry it. The modern GSM phone transforms the user‟s speech into a series of
encoded digital pulses. The code is changed every few seconds to prevent eavesdropping. The response from
the party replying is sent in a similarly coded form on a carrier wave from the nearest phone base station with
spare capacity.
The use of digital radio transmission by GSM phones was the first time such technology had been employed in a
commercial application. A concern that the pulse frequency might mimic some natural frequencies that occur in
the body (e.g. brain signals) and so adversely affect some bodily functions has been discounted (Foster and
Repacholi, 2004). There are no known decoding mechanisms that could affect the body using digital
transmissions from mobile phones.
The mobile phone combines a powerful computer with a radio transmitter and receiver. The electric currents
flowing in the phone are measured in milliamps –if higher currents were needed the phone would forever need
recharging. The power of the RF signals from the phone is only a fraction of a watt – illustrating the efficiency of
digital radio transmission. So, the technology is new in that never before has
it been possible to communicate so much to so many with so little power. The foregoing comments are equally
applicable to the various new applications of wireless telephony discussed in the Science
No untested wireless technology can be placed on sale within the European Union. All such equipment must
meet a battery of standards for electrical safety, electrical compatibility, electrical interference, performance and
fitness for use.
The CE mark is applied to all tested electrical goods marketed within the EU. Mobile phones and other wireless
hardware meets the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 89/336 EEC, the Low Voltage Directive 73/23 EEC,
the CE (Mark) Directive 93/68 EEC and the R&TTE Directive 1999/ EC. In addition mobile phones are designed
and manufactured not to exceed the limits for exposure to RF fields recommended by international guidelines.
These guidelines were developed by ICNIRP, an independent scientific commission, through periodic and
thorough evaluation of scientific studies. The exposure limits in the guidelines include a substantial safety margin
designed to ensure the safety of all persons, regardless of age and health status.
9.6 Irish authorities Directions
Although no research on the health effects of EMF has taken place in Ireland, the Irish authorities have been
active participants in the EMF-health issue for many years. In 1988 Concern over power line magnetic fields led
the Minister for Energy to stop the energizing of a newly constructed 220 kV line from Arklow to Carrickmines.
Following an investigation (McManus, 1988) the line was energized. However a
90
Commitment was made to closely monitor all scientific and technical developments concerning EMF exposure
and participate in international forums dealing with the issue. A further review of the science was completed and
published by the Government in 1992 (McManus, 1992). In response to growing public concern over possible
adverse health effects from an increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organisation
launched its International EMF Project in 1996. Ireland was a founder member of the Project, provided a
significant financial contribution to the Project and provided the first Chairman of the Project‟s International
Advisory Committee. Ireland continues to provide financial support to the Project and to participate in numerous
working groups and committees set up by the Project.
The International EMF Project brings together the current knowledge and available resources of key
international and national agencies and scientific institutions in order to assess the health and environmental
effects of exposure to static and time-varying electric and magnetic fields in the frequency
range 0 – 300 GHz. The Project has been designed to follow a logical progression of activities and produce a
series of outputs that allow improved health risk assessments to be made. The Project has produced numerous
WHO Fact Sheets dealing with many sources and aspects of EMF, including several dealing with mobile
wireless telephony. In 2006 an Environmental Health Criteria monograph on static fields was published (WHO
2006).
Further Environmental Health Criteria handbooks on the health effects of ELF and RF fields are scheduled to be
published by 2007 and 2009, respectively. No scientific research into possible health effects of mobile phone
technology has yet been carried out in Ireland. However, Ireland participated in expert groups involved in three
major EU initiatives relating to the protection of the public and workers from the adverse health effects of
exposure to non-ionizing radiation. These were the Council Recommendation on limiting exposure of the public
to electromagnetic fields (EU, 1999), and the two Physical Agents Directive dealing with limiting occupational
exposure to electromagnetic fields (EU, 2004) and optical radiation (EU, 2006). Ireland also contributed medical
expertise to an EU sponsored investigation of self-reported electrical hypersensitivity in Europe (Bergqvist,
1997).
COST is the acronym for “European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technological Research”. It
provides a framework for international research and scientific co-operation, facilitating the co-ordination of
national research at the European level. COST does not fund research but was established and is
financially supported by the European Commission to coordinate joint research projects, in areas of importance
to the EU Member States and other European countries. COST Action 281, in which Ireland participated as a
founder member and as an Executive Committee member, was an action within the COST-Telecommunication
Information Science and Technology. The main objective of COST 281, which ran from September 2001 to
September 2006, was to obtain a better understanding of possible health impacts of emerging technologies,
especially those related to communication and information technologies that may result in exposures to EMF.
Ireland hosted a major COST 281 conference on mobile phones and base stations at Dublin Castle in 2003. The

91
results of the work undertaken by COST 281 and details of its many research initiatives can be found on
the website www.cost281.org. The “400 Sites” survey of mobile phone base stations conducted by ComReg to
measure public exposures from this source was completed in 2004. It was then the largest survey of its kind
undertaken in Europe. In 2005 Ireland hosted the annual meeting of the International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety at Dublin Castle. The lead role in addressing these issues is currently being taken by the
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. At this time responsibilities are spread over a
number of Government Departments. It is felt that the situation could be improved by having an existing or new
agency take overall responsibility for providing scientific and policy advice. This report is one element of that
initiative.
9.7 Other authorities Participation

One of the most important research initiatives is that being undertaken by WHO through IARC. IARC is
coordinating the INTERPHONE study. This is a multi-centre study to determine whether tumors of the brain,
acoustic nerve, and parotid gland are associated with RF emitted by mobile phones. The study involves
epidemiologists in 13 countries studying the association of these diseases with mobile phone use, under a
common research protocol. The project is one of the largest ever undertaken on any topic and the first results
are now being published. Seven reports are now available on the IARC website
www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCA4.php. Ireland is not a participant in INTERPHONE. A large number of countries
have contributed to major research projects on many aspects of wireless telephony. Major research projects are
underway in the United States, Canada, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, Germany, Poland,
Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain,
Australia, Japan, China and Korea.
9.8 The ICNIRP guidelines apply only to short-term exposure
When the ICNIRP guidelines are drafted, the totality of the scientific evidence is assessed. Studies on both
short-term and long-term exposures are evaluated to reach conclusions on health effects. Only short term acute
health effects have been established by the scientific evidence. However the ICNIRP limit values apply to all
exposure situations, including long-term exposures.
ICNIRP is the formally recognized non-governmental organization responsible for non-ionizing radiation
protection for WHO, the International Labor Office (ILO), and the EU. Among other things it provides guidelines
on limiting the exposure of the public to EMF, optical radiation, ultrasound and infrasound. The
ICNIRP guidelines limiting public and occupational exposure to EMF are endorsed by the WHO; have been
adopted by a great many countries around the world; and are incorporated into an EU occupational exposure
Directive (EU, 2004) and a public exposure Recommendation (EU, 1999). In Ireland, the ICNIRP guidelines have
been adopted by both the Communications Regulator and the Commission for Energy Regulation.
92
21
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ICNIRP guidelines and long-term exposure
The ICNIRP guidelines are based on comprehensive reviews of all relevant published peer-reviewed literature.
Exposure limits are based on effects relating to short-term acute exposure as the above question implies.
However it is not the case that long-term exposures are disregarded or discounted, it is simply that the available
information on long-term effects is considered to be insufficient to establish exposure limits. For example, there
have been several very large lifetime exposure studies involving animals. These studies have involved
exposures to both ELF and RF fields, corresponding respectively to power line fields and mobile phone fields.
So far, none of these studies have established any adverse health effects at exposures corresponding to the
present guideline limits or at higher levels. Threshold levels In its appraisal of the scientific literature ICNIRP
monitors the accumulation of new evidence, leading, as appropriate, to updating its risk assessments. The latter
are based on the totality of the science, not just on the latest information. In the health risk assessments the
lowest level of EMF field that causes an adverse health effect is identified; this is termed the threshold level.
Over the EMF frequency range from 0 Hz to 300 GHz, there are different thresholds at different frequencies.
These differences arise because the nature of the interaction of EMF with the human body changes with
frequency. The lowest established threshold levels for an adverse health effect become the basis of the
guidelines. To allow for uncertainties in science, this lowest threshold level is reduced further to derive the limit
values for human exposure. For example, ICNIRP reduces the level of the threshold by 10 times for the
occupational limits for workers and by 50 times to arrive at the exposure limits for the general public. The limits
vary with frequency as has been explained (WHO, 2002).
Essentially the ICNIRP guidelines are based on established health effects. Any evidence that established an
adverse health effect at exposures below the current threshold values would lead to a re-examination and review
of the present guidelines. Following the publication of the WHO Environmental Health Criteria reports on static,
ELF, and RF fields, the ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998) will be subject to further review.
Sometimes it will be said, particularly in relation to the ICNIRP guidelines for RF exposure, that the limits are
based on thermal effects of RF exposure and ignore non-thermal effects. While it is true the limits are based on
thermal effects this is because they are the only effects established to have any adverse health consequences.
The EU Co-operation on Science and Technology initiative, COST281, examined this question in a workshop on
“Subtle Temperature Effects of RF-EMF” (COST, 2002). Concerning temperature effects, the conclusion
reached was that many of the biological effects reported as taking place under isothermal conditions were in fact
responses to minor changes in the bulk temperature of the investigated system (COST, 2003). In living cells,
temperature changes as low as three one-hundredths of a degree are enough to increase their chemical, and
therefore biological activity. Few experimental systems can control temperature to better than one tenth of a
degree. In other words, reported non-thermal effects may be due to small thermal effects.
The ICNIRP guidelines are employed by governments and health advisory authorities worldwide to ensure the
protection of citizens from any adverse health effects that might arise from exposure to EMF. The guidelines are

93
under continual review and all medical and scientific evidence that meets specified criteria of scientific
acceptability is taken into consideration by ICNIRP in these reviews.
9.9 Precautionary measurement is adopted in relation to EMF exposure
There is no doubt that the prudent use of precautionary measures would help reassure many in
Ireland who have concerns over EMF exposure. WHO‟s EMF Project has been working to develop guidance for
Member States who want to adopt precautionary measures and it is hoped these will be available soon.
9.9.1 Precautionary Principle
The „Precautionary principle‟ was first used in German environmental law in the early 1970s as the „Vorsorge-
prinzip‟.„Sorge‟ means care, and „Vorsorge‟ means foresight or care for the future. The Precautionary principle
has since been used widely in international policy statements; conventions dealing with environmental concerns
and uncertain science; and sustainable development strategies. The principle was introduced in 1984 at the First
International Conference on Protection of the North Sea. Following this conference, the principle was integrated
into numerous international conventions and agreements, including the Bergen declaration on sustainable
development, the Maastricht Treaty on the European Union, the Barcelona Convention, and the Global Climate
Change Convention (Foster et al., 2000).
The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST, 2005) has produced a
working definition of the Precautionary Principle that is applicable to scientific issues.
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the
environment that is threatening to human life or health, or serious and effectively irreversible, .Expert Group on
Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields inequitable to present or future generations, or imposed without
adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.
The judgments of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that
chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality
or the bounds of the possible harm.

94
Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm.
Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of
their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral
implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process. A
definition given by the European Environment Agency grasps the essential concept that it is a policy framework
that allows rational and cost effective decisions to be made concerning potential dangers to health or the
environment in areas of scientific uncertainty (Gee, 2001).
9.9.2 When the precautionary approach should be used
In the public health arena, priority is usually given to controlling risks that are clearly established; that is,
involving risk factors with a clear causal relationship to known diseases. However, rapid technological
developments produce an ever-increasing variety of agents and exposure situations whose health
consequences are less clear, and societies increasingly wish to address these uncertain consequences.
Waiting for conclusive evidence of a health threat can have unfortunate consequences (Gee, 2001). Therefore,
when an agent is ubiquitous or the potential harm great or the possible effects are irreversible, it is sensible to
consider taking precautions before a cause–effect relationship has been quantified or even established.
Precaution can be integrated naturally into existing public health policy and should complement conventional
disease prevention measures, which are usually taken only after a cause effect relationship has been
established. However, care must be taken to have a due process when establishing policies based on
precaution. Not all suggested health risks are found to be real. Indiscriminate use of precautionary measures
may mean that innovations with undoubted health benefits will not be developed, or the benefits they bring will
be delayed. Further, it may lead to widely differing national policies and to increased public anxiety.
9.9.3 Reasons for applying a precautionary approach to EMF
The justification for considering a precautionary approach to limiting exposures to the ELF fields associated with
the transmission, distribution and use of electricity is based, in part, on the classification of ELF magnetic fields
as a possible human carcinogen by IARC. ICNIRP, in an assessment of the same evidence stated that the
evidence for ELF fields causing cancer or other health effects at levels below those set out in their guidelines is
not sufficient to warrant revised exposure limits at 0.3 or 0.4 μT. ICNIRP stated that this step was not appropriate
because:
1. There is too much uncertainty in the interpretation of the epidemiological studies to be confident that these are
indeed the appropriate levels.
2. Simplistic application of limits at these low levels is likely to have costs disproportionate to any benefit.
95
3. They could undermine the consistent adoption of ICNIRP guidelines.
However, given that there is still uncertainty about whether long term exposure to ELF magnetic fields could
cause childhood leukemia, use of precautionary measures to lower people‟s exposure, that are low or no cost,
would therefore appear to be warranted.
A second area where precautionary measures might be applied is to mobile phones. At this time there is no firm
evidence to support a view that mobile phones are a health hazard. Indeed, the scientific evidence for RF fields
causing adverse health effects at the levels where the general public are normally exposed is much weaker than
that for ELF magnetic fields (NRPB, 2004). However a number of important research projects on this subject
have yet to be completed and these could change the picture.
The UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR, 2003) concluded that research published since the
Stewart report (IEGMP, 2000) did not give cause for concern and the weight of evidence available did not
suggest that there were adverse health effects from exposure to RF fields below the guideline levels. However,
because the published research on RF exposures and health was considered to have limitations and because
mobile phones had been in use for a relatively short time, the AGNIR felt the possibility remained open that there
could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below the guideline levels; hence more research was needed.
Until the results of current and planned scientific research studies become available it is prudent to consider
some precautionary actions.
9.9.4 Expert Group view on precautionary measurements to EMF
A key point that must be made is that the adoption of a precautionary approach to EMF does not necessarily
mean taking measures to reduce exposure. It can include other actions. A precautionary approach can cover a
multitude of measures, varying from moderate measures such as the monitoring of scientific developments or
the provision of information, through more active participation in the process of
acquiring knowledge by carrying out research, up to stronger measures such as lowering exposure limits (HCN,
2004).
23
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields A hierarchy of options that might be considered when
applying precautionary measures to (i) ELF fields and (ii) mobile phones is given below. In the case of ELF
fields:
Take on action;

96
More research;
Better communications;
Improved electric wiring in homes;
Improved arrangement for the transmission and distribution of electric power;
Improved electrical appliance design;
Changes in land-use regime – new planning laws.
For mobile phones:
Greater availability of data on phone emission levels;

Encouragement of continued reduction of RF transmission levels used by phones;
Improved design of hands-free kits;
Greater provision of hands-free kits;
Greater encouragement to use hands-free kits.
In the case of phone masts it is difficult to identify specific measures since masts are needed to provide RF
communications in the surrounding environment. Their emissions are determined by network needs; too little
signal causes gaps in mobile phone coverage, and too much signal would cause interference with neighboring
masts (cells). However information on EMF exposures, public consultation, and reducing public concern, should
be part of improvements to base station licensing regimes and planning policy.
9.9.5 Drawbacks to precautionary policies
The precautionary approach could be detrimental were it to become a bureaucratic obstacle to innovation or
encourage high cost actions that provided little benefit to health. The European Commission Resolution in 2000
stated that the Precautionary Principle can be invoked only when the risk is scientifically plausible, that the
measures taken should be proportionate (costs should relate to benefits), and that the uncertainties should
stimulate appropriate research. While the Precautionary Principle can reassure the public by showing that
everything that can be done is being done, risk management should take into account risk perception and
acceptability.
There is no doubt that the prudent use of precautionary measures would help reassure many in Ireland who are
concerned over EMF exposure. Three specific areas in which this could be applied in Ireland are the use of
mobile phones by children, the siting of high tension electricity supply cables, and the siting of mobile phone
masts.

97
9.10 Planning Laws concerning phone masts have regard to public health and
safety regarding EMF exposure
There is scope for improvements in the Planning Law and its application that could lead to an improvement in
the public acceptance of base stations. Local Authorities are responsible for having them located where they are
least objectionable but still permitting a high quality network to operate. WHO is drafting an advisory document
for Local Authorities worldwide to assist them in dealing with planning applications for base stations and on how
to best involve the affected community in an effective manner. This document should provide useful and relevant
advice to Irish authorities.
9.10.1 Present planning arrangements
A common concern expressed by almost every individual, group and organization that responded to the Expert
Group‟s request for submissions to aid it in its work was dissatisfaction over the present arrangements in Ireland
governing the erection of base stations. Neither concerned citizens‟ groups, local
authority representatives nor the phone companies themselves considered the situation satisfactory. In some
cases base stations were being erected without planning consent by exploiting loopholes in the Planning and
Development Act (2000) and its Regulations (S.I. 600 of 2001). In other cases some local authorities adopt a
policy that places restrictions on the location of masts in relation to buildings such as schools, hospitals and
residences. This situation needs to be addressed so that such loopholes cannot be exploited and the public feel
that the approval process for erection of new phone masts is open and transparent, and follows agreed rules. An
example of exploiting a planning loophole Under Schedule 2, Part 1, of the Planning and Development
Regulations (2001) antennas placed on an existing pylon structure are an exempted development under
Planning Law. Therefore if pylon lighting is installed on a sports ground following planning consent and without
objection, it becomes an existing pylon structure. A few weeks later mobile phone antennas are attached to one
of the lighting pylons as exempted development.
9.10.2 Issues that concern the public
On the basis of the scientific evidence, there is no health consequence associated with exposure to the RF
signals from base stations. Essentially, the RF fields emitted by the antennas .Expert Group on Health Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields are not only too low to be a hazard, but are of comparable and often lower strengths than
those produced by television and radio broadcasting, to which most people have been exposed for much longer.

98
However there are other issues connected with the location of base stations. These are issues where the
legitimate interests of the public could be better addressed. Government policies, together with appropriate
planning regulations, tailored to address the issues that concern the public would help provide the public with the
reassurances it seeks. It could also improve the public‟s acceptance of new wireless communication
technologies. Some issues that have given rise to particular concerns are:
Proposals to locate base stations in areas of great natural beauty. There is scope for a disguised mast
that blends with its surroundings.
Proposals to locate base stations in places detrimental to the local urban architecture or streetscape.
There is a case for housing the base station inside an existing structure. If no suitable structure exists
then the base station should be located elsewhere.
Proposals to locate base stations near places where children gather. While it is known that the RF
emissions should not produce any health effects in children, it creates unnecessary sensitivities and
concerns among parents.
Insufficient information is provided on the physical size, shape and style of the proposed base station
and the number and kinds of antennas to be attached to it; and on future plans for additional antennas
likely to be placed on the mast and details of the additional antennas.
There should be enough information on the RF energy emitted by each antenna and accurate estimates
of the ground level exposures of the public in the vicinity of the proposed base station. Also, once
erected a base station becomes an existing structure and further antennas are considered an exempted
development; it should be a requirement that similar details be provided of all possible additional
antennas at the time of submitting the planning application.
Insufficient information on public exposures, both outdoors and indoors, to EMF fields from phone masts
and the contribution of other RF sources to the public‟s overall exposure at these locations.
Insufficient information on the safe distances from phone masts. This point relates to a question put to
the Expert Group by Local Authority representatives. The question was “Can one calculate the safe
distance from a phone mast antenna?” In other words, how close can a person go to a phone mast

99
antenna before that person‟s exposure exceeds international exposure limits? In most
cases the distance is less than 2 m.
Absence of any central expert body the public can consult concerning phone masts and other EMF
issues.
Absence of regularly updated user-friendly information on EMF issues. The final two points could be
dealt with by a body in Ireland appointed to co-ordinate EMF activities, provide EMF advice, and publish
information on the EMF issue in brochures, on a website, and in regular reviews of the scientific
literature. This has been addressed in the recommendations of the Expert Group.
9.10.3 The ICNIRP guidelines to short-term exposure
When the ICNIRP guidelines are drafted, the totality of the scientific evidence is assessed. Studies on both
short-term and long-term exposures are evaluated to reach conclusions on health effects. Only short term acute
health effects have been established by the scientific evidence. However the ICNIRP limit values apply to all
exposure situations, including long-term
exposures.
ICNIRP is the formally recognized non-governmental organization responsible for non-ionizing radiation
protection for WHO, the International Labor Office (ILO), and the EU. Among other things it provides guidelines
on limiting the exposure of the public to EMF, optical radiation, ultrasound and infrasound. The ICNIRP
guidelines limiting public and occupational exposure to
EMF are endorsed by the WHO; have been adopted by a great many countries around the world; and are
incorporated into an EU occupational exposure Directive (EU, 2004) and a public
exposure Recommendation (EU, 1999). In Ireland, the ICNIRP guidelines have been adopted by both the
Communications Regulator and the Commission for Energy Regulation.
The ICNIRP guidelines are based on comprehensive reviews of all relevant published peer-reviewed literature.
Exposure limits are based on effects relating to short-term acute exposure as the above question implies.
However it is not the case that long-term exposures are disregarded or discounted, it is simply that the available
information on long-term effects is considered to be insufficient to establish exposure limits. For example, there
have been several very large lifetime exposure studies involving animals. These studies have involved
exposures to both ELF and RF fields, corresponding respectively to power line fields and mobile phone fields.
So far, none of these studies have established any adverse health effects at exposures

100
corresponding to the present guideline limits or at higher levels. Threshold levels, In its appraisal of the
scientific literature ICNIRP monitors the accumulation of new evidence, leading, as appropriate, to updating its
risk assessments. The latter are based on the totality of the science, not just on the latest information. In the
health risk assessments the lowest level of EMF field that causes an adverse health effect is identified; this is
termed the threshold level. Over the EMF frequency range from 0 Hz to 300 GHz, there are different thresholds
at different frequencies. These differences arise because the nature of the interaction of EMF with the human
body changes with frequency. The lowest established threshold levels for an adverse health effect become the
basis of the guidelines. To allow for uncertainties in science, this lowest threshold level is reduced further to
derive the limit values for human exposure. For example, ICNIRP reduces the level of the threshold by 10 times
for the occupational limits for workers and by 50 times to arrive at the exposure limits for the general public. The
limits vary with frequency as has been explained (WHO, 2002).
Essentially the ICNIRP guidelines are based on established health effects. Any evidence that established an
adverse health effect at exposures below the current threshold values would lead to a re-examination and review
of the present guidelines. Following the publication of the WHO Environmental Health Criteria reports on static,
ELF, and RF fields, the ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998) will be subject to further review.
9.10.4 Thermal and non-thermal effects

Sometimes it will be said, particularly in relation to the ICNIRP guidelines for RF exposure, that the limits are
based on thermal effects of RF exposure and ignore non-thermal effects. While it is true the limits are based on
thermal effects this is because they are the only effects established to have any adverse health consequences.
The EU Co-operation on Science and Technology initiative, COST281, examined this question in a workshop on
“Subtle Temperature Effects of RF-EMF” (COST, 2002). Concerning temperature effects, the conclusion
reached was that many of the biological effects reported as taking place under isothermal conditions were in fact
responses to minor changes in the bulk temperature of the investigated system (COST, 2003). In living cells,
temperature changes as low as three one-hundredths of a degree are enough to increase their chemical, and
therefore biological activity. Few experimental systems can control temperature to better than one tenth of a
degree. In other words, reported non-thermal effects may be due to small thermal effects.
9.11 Discussion
The ICNIRP guidelines are employed by governments and health advisory authorities worldwide to ensure the
protection of citizens from any adverse health effects that might arise from
exposure to EMF. The guidelines are under continual review and all medical and scientific evidence that meets
specified criteria of scientific acceptability is taken into consideration by ICNIRP in these reviews.
101
9.12 Consultation
In many European countries, efforts to resolve the problem of gaining public acceptance of building new phone
masts have centred on involving people in the areas affected by the proposals in the decision making process.
The decision is, however, not usually one of “Should the mast be built?” but “Where should it be built?” Public
involvement in phone mast decisions works best where there is an acceptance by all that the mast needs to be
erected somewhere in the area. WHO is drafting an advisory document for Local Authorities to assist them in
dealing with planning applications for phone masts and on how best to involve the affected general public in an
effective manner.

102
Chapter 10
Conclusion and Future Work
10.1 Conclusion
Although Information and communication Technology plays an important part of our modern life and the modern
life we cannot think us without information and communication technology but it have many bad impact to our
health and environments.There is a word says “Nothing in the world is fully develop for human help”.
Electromagnetic field is used by several communications and information technological device for core design. It
has many bad effects to the human health and to environmental. Many Diseases are formed by it so in modern
time it is called the Stupid economy. Many standards are following now by NCRP, IEEE, ICNIRP, ANSI, FCC,
WHO. So according to the rules and regulation of this organization if we design a product and assign a safety
frequency we may save us slightly from a great danger.So the manufacturer should obey the rules to product
design for safety use. The impact cannot be reducing totally but precautionary step can save from great danger
and loss can be minimizing into a satisfactory level. In the personal use of the ICT device we would aware to
take care of our health ad as well as the environment.
10.2 Future Work
In my work I have studied with the possible risk of the fact. Among them some references are notified on my
research. In the near future I will try to find the actual case with experimental data.
References:
1. Anderson L. 2000. EMF responses in farm animals. In: Proceedings of International Seminar on Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment, 4-5 October 1999, Ismaning Germany.
2. U.S. Navy. 1997. An evaluation of the U.S. Navy's extremely low frequency submarine communications
ecological monitoring program Washington DC: National Academy Press.
3. Kalmijn AdJ. 1982. Electric and magnetic field detection in elasmobranches‟ fishes. Science, 218:916-917.
4. Kleinhaus S, Pinshow B, Frumkin R. 1995. Thermal effects of short radio-waves on migrating birds. Ecological
Applications 5:672-679

103
5. Reilly P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

6.Benedick MH, Greenberg B. 1974. The Sanguine biological and ecological research program. IEEE Trans
Comm COM-22:570-577.
7.Berman E, Kinn JB, Ali J, Carter HB, Rehnberg B, Stead AG. 1985. Lethality in mice and rats exposed to 2450
MHz circularly polarized microwaves as a unction of exposure duration and environmental factors. J Appl Toxicol
5(1):23-31.
8. Bevanger K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a
review. Biol Cons 86:67-76.
9. Bruderer B, Steuri PD. 1999. Behaviour of migrating birds exposed to X-band radar and a bright light beam. J
Exp Biol 202:1015-1022.
10. Byman D, Wasserman FE, Schlinger BA, Battista SP, Kunz TH. 1985. Thermoregulation of budgerigars
exposed to microwaves (2.45 GHz, CW) during flight. Physiol Zool 58(1):91-104.
11. Carstensen EL. 1987. Biological Effects of Transmission Line Fields. New York:Elsevier.
Durney CH, Massoudi H, Iskander MF. 1986. Radiofrequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook. 4th Edition., US
Air Force Sch. of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, TX, Report No. SAM-TR-85-73.
12. Gordon CJ, Ali JS. 1987. Comparative thermoregulatory response to passive heat loading by exposure to
radiofrequency radiation. Comp. Biochem Physiol 88A (1):107-112.
13.Haradem DP, Gauger JR, Zapotosky JE. 1993. ELF communications systems ecological monitoring program:
electromagnetic field measurements and engineering support--1992. NTIS Document No. AD-A272 099/3
14. Kirschvink JL, Padmanabha S, Boyce CK, Oglesby J. 1997. Measurement of the threshold sensitivity of
honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. J Exp Biol 200(9):1363-1368.
15. Kleinhaus S, Pinshow B, Frumkin R. 1995. Thermal effects of short radio-waves on migrating birds.
Ecological Applications 5:672-679.
16. Koops FBJ. 2000. Electric and magnetic fields in consequence of undersea power cables. In: Proceedings of
International Seminar on Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment, 4-5 October 1999,
Ismaning Germany. Oberschleissheim (Germany): ICNIRP 189-210.

104
17.Jones, D, McLeod, B. 1996. Electromagnetic cell stimulation. In: Electrical Manipulation of Cells (Lynch
PT and Davey MR, eds.). New York: Chapman & Hall, 223-247.
18.Lefcourt A. 1991. Effects of electrical voltage/current on farm animals: how to detect and remedy problems.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 696.
19. Morar R, Munteanu R, Simion E, Munteanu I, Dascalescu L. 1995. Electrostatic treatment of bean seed. In:
Proc. 30th IAS Annual Meeting, IEEE Industry Applications Society), Vol. 2:1335-1337.
20. National Research Council. 1977. Committee on Biosphere Effects of Extremely-Low-Frequency Radiation,
Biologic effects of electric and magnetic fields associated with proposed Project Seafarer. Washington DC:
National Academy Press. pp 440 ------. 1997.
21. Potts, MD, Parkinson WC, Nooden LD. 1997. Raphanus sativus and electromagnetic fields. Bioelectrochem
Bioenerg 44:131-140.
22. Sheppard A. 2000. Environmental and ecological considerations for static and ELF electric power
transmission line projects. In: Proceedings of International Seminar on Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the
Living Environment, 4-5 October 1999, Ismaning Germany. Oberschleissheim (Germany): ICNIRP 211-230.
23. Soja G. 2000. Effects of EMF on plants. In: Proceedings of International Seminar on Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment, 4-5 October 1999, Ismaning Germany. Oberschleissheim
(Germany): ICNIRP 79-93.
24. U.S. Department of Energy. 1980. The Final Proceedings of the Solar Power Satellite Program review, April
22 - 25, 1980, Conf-800491 (July).
25. Lorenz Erdmann (IZT), Lorenz Hilty (EMPA/FHSO), James Goodman (Forum for the Future), Peter Arnfalk
(IIIEE) AUGUST 2004,The future impact of ICTs on environmental sustainability.
25. WWW.wekipedia.com.
26. www.Google.com.
27. www.seminarproject.com

Impacts of ICT To Health and Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impacts of ICT To Health and Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology

to Health and Environment

Md. Mahbubur Rahman

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

This is dedicated to my Parents Md.Moqbul Howlader & Rezia Begum.

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Chapter Title Page

Chapter 1. Information and Communication Technology

1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………13

Chapter 2. Electromagnetic Fields from Major Electrical Technologies

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Chapter 3. Biological Interaction Mechanisms

3.1 Introduction ........................... …………………………………………………………………………..39-40

Chapter 4. Environmental Impact of Electromagnetic Fields

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

5.1 Introduction ........................... …………………………………………………………………………59-60

Chapter 6. Health and environmental impacts of disposing equipment’s waste

6.1 Introduction ........................... ………………………………………………………………………….71-72

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Chapter 7. Impact of ICT in Agriculture and Food Production

7.5 Effects on animals…………………………………………………………………………………………..79

Chapter 8. Present status of expert opinion on EMF health effects

Chapter 9: Step in the right direction

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Chapter 10: Conclusion and Future Work

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Figure Title Page

1.1 World wide communication Networks 14

1.2 Power lines an important so0urce of Electrical low Frequency 16

1.3 Electromagnetic Spectrum. 18

2.2 The Electromagnetic Spectrum using device 31

2.3 High Voltage Power line 33

3.1 Conductivity of different tissues according to voltage 39

3.2 Biological Interaction Mechanism 41

3.3 Blood – Brain barrier 42

3.4 DNA Chain deflection 44

3.5 Photo of a one day baby wearing RFID tag 50

4.2 Aquascape Ecosystem 55

5.1 Cell Phone and Base station 59

5.2 Using Mobile Phone 61

5.3 Mobile phone base station 62

6.1 ICT a part of the problem 71

6.2 Life cycle Assessment Study 72

6.3 Extraction of material Normal process (burning). 76

6.4 Extraction of material scientific process 77

7.1 Farmer shows empty grain of paddy field 80

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Table Name Page

2.1 Typical Source of Electromagnetic Field 23

5.1 Typical mobile phone SAR 63

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

Information and Communication Technology

1.2 Information and communications technology

1.3 Information and Communication technologies for Development

Figure 1.1: World wide communication Networks.

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

1.4 The Impacts of ICT

The electromagnetic radiation associated with equipment use

Impacts of Information and Communication Technology to Health and Environment.

1.5 ICT Associate Parts