Cell Phone Safety Standards Not Safe Enough

 


Visitors: 916

If you think your cell phone's low SAR rating will keep you safe from your phone's radio frequency/microwave radiation, think again. Several studies have shown that even low-intensity radiation, up to 200,000 lower than existing safety standards, produces biological effects.

What is SAR, anyway?

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The FCC has adopted limits for safe exposure to radio frequency and requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure that their phones comply. Any cell phone at or below these SAR levels (that is, any phone legally sold in the U. S. ) is a “safe" phone, as measured by these standards. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). (You can request your cell phone's SAR information from the manufacturer or your carrier. )

When radio frequency energy impinges upon your body tissue, part of it is absorbed and converted to heat due to ionic conduction. This heat manifests itself as a temperature increase inside the tissue. Earlier on the government and the industry have come to the conclusion that if this heating is below a certain level, then the radiation level is safe.

Biological Effects from Low Exposure

But several laboratory studies show that nonthermal (non-heating) effects, including those occurring at levels way below the current SAR standards, can be dangerous. During the past several years three out of four independent (non-industry sponsored) research studies worldwide have been showing these nonthermal effects, which include:
- DNA damage and nonrepair
- breakdown of the blood-brain barrier (allowing chemical toxins and pathogens to reach the brain)
- lowered immunity
- decreased melatonin levels
- effects on stress proteins (indicating cell damage)
- formation of micronuclei (aberrations in cell nuclei which are often markers for cancer)
- changes in calcium metabolism affecting communication between cells
- changes in brainwave patterns as seen on EEG's
- plus effects observed on many different systems of the body.

Researchers are cautious in drawing any conclusions that these effects are directly linked to major health problems like cancer and neurological conditions. They are, however, plausible precursors to such conditions, and some evidence suggests there may be an association. Even conservative researchers who have looked into these nonthermal effects express concern that this radiation is a “probable" cause of health problems.

Given that bioeffects have been seen in exposures as low as 0.000021 W/Kg (Kwee study on Changes in cell cycle and cell proliferation, 1997) when the FCC limit is 1.6 W/Kg, the safety guidelines need to be re-evaluated. Some scientists, for instance, are calling for a new measure that would indicate the total energy absorbed by a tissue, not just the radio frequency energy as it is with SAR.

Filling the Gap

In the meantime, what do you, as the consumer, do? If the whole tobacco controversy was any indication, it could take several more years before there develops any clear consensus about this issue. The everyday cell phone user cannot afford to wait. Every time you make a call with your cell phone, radio frequency waves penetrate into your head and potentially put your health at risk.

To address concerns of the public becoming more aware of such dangers, there has grown a market to fill the need for protective solutions. Promising new technologies that have passed scientific testing are proven to be effective in preventing biological stress caused by electromagnetic frequencies. Scientists and health professionals concerned about public health recommend these scientifically validated devices and you ought it to yourself to investigate them.

It took two decades of study, 100 years of consumer use, and untold millions of casualties before the U. S. Surgeon General's warning label was placed on cigarette packs. A time will come when the government becomes satisfied with the voluminous data it needs to establish the health risks of cell phone use and set new safety standards. Until then, make sure you do not become a number in the statistics. Don't wait.

© copyright 2005 Taraka Serrano

Taraka Serrano is a health advocate associated with BIOPRO Technology, a company that provides electromagnetic field (EMF) protection solutions. For more information about the health dangers of EMF exposure and to find out how you can protect yourself and your family, watch the special video report: "The Invisible Dangers of EMF Radiation" at: BIOPRO EMF Protection

(780)

Article Source:


 
Rate this Article: 
 
Trace a Cell Phone Number - The Easiest and Fasest Way To Identify Unknown Cell .
Rated 4 / 5
based on 5 votes
ArticleSlash

Related Articles:

Cell Phone Safety - Am I Really At Risk

by: Samantha Goode (July 05, 2005) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)

Is My Cell Phone Safe From Telemarketers?

by: Dwayne Eisen (August 28, 2008) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)

safety precautions for Nokia Cell phone

by: Awadesh Ymob (March 26, 2011) 
(Computers and Technology/Mobile Computing)

Cell Phone Safety Tips for Equestrians

by: Debba Boles (February 21, 2011) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)

Cell Phone Safety: How to Protect your Mobile Records

by: Emma Drosy (October 02, 2006) 
(Communications)

Be Safe - Check Any Cell Phone Number

by: Martin Verite (November 10, 2008) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)

Cell Phone Safety Issues From Driving to Tracking Down Unknown Numbers

by: Terry Taggert (July 15, 2008) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)

Toys and Their Safety Standards

by: Rachel Nunez (November 14, 2008) 
(Kids and Teens)

Safety Standards As Set By Ford

by: Jason Moore (September 06, 2006) 
(Automotive)

Trace a Cell Phone Number - The Easiest and Fasest Way To Identify Unknown Cell .

by: Alec McEachern (June 25, 2010) 
(Communications/Mobile Cell Phone)