|
Introduction
Since
there is a shortage of space in schools, many school districts use
portable trailers often to serve as classrooms for school students.
Up to this point in its technology upgrade program, many school
districts have not funded the broad scale deployment of technology
within portable classrooms. Schools must decide whether such deployment
will utilize the same building wiring standards that have guided efforts
within the permanent campus or
utilize
wireless local area networking technology. To make this decision, Public
Schools are analyzing the feasibility of placing wireless computers into
portable classrooms (A/K/A "portables").
Such computers would interact with servers in the central
processing site via the proposed Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN).
Promoters of wireless technology state that it is less expensive,
and can be installed easily and quickly because there is no need to dig
trenches, open walls and ceilings to install cables, as would be
required for hard-wired systems. Another
element favoring the utilization of wireless technology is its inherent
mobility; that is, devices can more easily be moved and reactivated in
other portables.
However,
on the flip side, there are many negative aspects to "going
wireless" in portables related to health and safety. This analysis
provides information regarding health effects associated with wireless
microwave radiation transmitting technologies, specifically the WLAN.
How
the Technology Works
Digital
Bits Ð Conduction of Pieces of Information Via Electric Pulses.
Technology builds on its foundation.
Thus, in principle, the purpose and requirements of the Wireless
Local Area Network are like that of Morse code. In
this electronic age, instead of mechanically tapping codes, computers
use digital bits (electric pulses) that signal: Yes (1), I am carrying
data; or No (0), I have nothing. Several
million electric pulses (megabits) travel in streams of invisible light
(radio waves) carrying true characters that form words (1) or spaces (0)
that separate words. Morse
code consisted of intermittent tapping that produced sound, which was
transported in slow rolling waves of air particles.
But digital pulses of radio waves move fast at the speed of light
. They are precise,
consistent, and travel along specially engineered waves.
Therefore, data moves rapidly and smoothly through the digital
system.
Wireless
Local Area Network (WLAN) Ð Movement of Data in Air to Remote Devices.
Wireless computers rely on transmitters to push data to and
through the air, which offers resistance, and are therefore inherently
less reliable than wired networks.
Computer transformers operate at several thousand volts.
In a wireless computer system, transformers send millions of bits
of information to transmitters atop the desk or through the lap top
antenna. In turn, the data
is packaged onto a signal
and sent to a microwave antenna that is usually perched on the wall of a
room or mounted on doors or on tall structures.
The wall antenna downloads the data into its attached waveguide,
which channels the information, via outdoor and indoor antennas, to
users in the Wireless Local Area Network or to antenna(s)
receiver/transmitter located on the main campus building for further
processing. The
transmitter's receiver located on the main campus building is connected
to the school's wired network. Since
WLANs would be on during the school day, the microwave transmitters
attached to these wireless systems are transmitting continuously.
Electric pulses in the microwave region (radio waves), the band
of the electromagnetic spectrum used for communications, can pass
through nearly all types of matter, including children.
Standards,
Rules, and Guidelines
Commercial
wireless products are designed to comply with industry-based standards
that are created by the industry appointed professional associations for
industry use in achieving uniformity and compatibility in the
manufacture and application of wireless communication technologies.
These standards are different from government rules that are enforced by
any government agency with regulatory authority over signal interference
between licensed carriers. Since the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) is only a licensing and engineering agency it does not test, fund,
or conduct research. They
do not monitor communications installations to ensure compliance with
FCC guidelines governing human exposure to radio frequency (RF) or
microwave radiation. The
FCC relies on other agencies to recommend safety recommendations for
wireless technologies.
The
organizations responsible for developing the safety recommendations
include the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) associations. The committee that set RF exposure standards was first
sponsored by ANSI and then by IEEE. It is basically the same group of
people. It is important to
understand that industry standards and government rules are two
different things. The IEEE
committee is mainly comprised of engineers and physicists who deal with
non-living sciences. They
have been traditionally charged with the task of making these
technologies work, not with the understanding of health effects that are
within the purview of the living sciences of biology and medicine. The
health physicists who serve on these committees have traditionally been
active in high intensity (energy) radiation research primarily from
defense-related industries. These
scientists have conducted research on the ionizing band and are not as
knowledgeable about physical and biological effects related to exposure
to non-ionizing radiation used in wireless technologies. There are many
biologist working in the field of bioelectromagnetics. But somehow most
of them had left the committee.
FCC
Guidelines- Human exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation Ð
In August 1997, following the enactment of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published
guidelines governing human exposure to radiofrequency (microwave)
radiation. These guidelines
are difficult to enforce because the FCC lacks the man-power and the
necessary funding to carry out monitoring
and enforcement from exposure to radiofrequency (microwave) radiation.
These guidelines were developed by the FCC to protect the health and
safety of the general public and certain high risk occupational groups,
such as telecommunications workers. For example, the guidelines outline
the power density exposure level permitted for the general public
(1mW/cm2 for 30 minutes) and workers (5mW/cm2 for 6 minutes). The
rationale for the difference in permissible exposure levels is that
workers are aware of the presence of radiation, and can protect
themselves. Whereas the
public is considered to be unaware of radiation, and would not be aware
that protection is needed. We add that children would be even less apt to understand the
concept of "awareness" when studying or playing near to transmitting
signals from a Wireless LAN to wireless computers.
According
to the World Health Organization's Fact Sheet No. 193, June 2000
"Most studies have examined the results of short-term, whole body
exposure to RF fields at levels far higher than those normally
associated with wireless communications. With the advent of such devices
as walkie-talkies and mobile phones, it has become apparent that few
studies address the consequences of localized exposures to RF fields to
the head. Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to
RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base
stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. 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. While one
1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically
engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this
result is unclear."
Wireless
Local Area Networks (WLANs) technologies are regulated by the FCC under
Section 47 Part 15 rules. Section
47 Part 15 rules specify compliance with FCC rules regarding radio
interference. FCC Part 15
rules for wireless LAN applications are concerned primarily with
microwave power output as it relates to the prevention of radio
interference [see FCC
99-149 pl, sec 2].
Depending
on intensity, radiofrequency radiation can cause heating of body
tissues. No heating will occur if the body can compensate for the heat
load. In general, the intensity of exposure of radiation from cell
phones, cell towers, and WLANs is low and does not cause significant
tissue heating. X-rays are classified as ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation exposures are governed by government and
industry standards. Unfortunately,
industry uses the thermal level of radiation where the body increases in
temperature and would go into shock or burn if over-exposed, as a basis
for setting guidelines for products (emitting radiofrequency radiation). It is important to note that WLANs also operate in the
non-ionizing spectrum. The
FCC exposure guidelines apply for wireless devices operating in the
non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum including the devices, such as
cell phones, cell towers.
How
could the FCC guidelines for wireless devices operating in the
non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum be based upon standards that are
not internationally accepted and proven safe?
That question can best be addressed by the wireless publication,
Microwave News. "Standard
setting bodies do more or less as industry wants.
Their members are often current, past, or future employees of the
very companies they are supposed to regulate.
Meanwhile government agencies have no appetite for confrontation."
While
the wireless industry has stated that its standards and the FCC
guidelines are safe and do not pose a risk to workers or the general
public, many in the wireless community do not agree.
Morton Bahr, President of the 600,000 U.S. Communications Workers
of America (CWA), a national union with a membership dominated by
telecommunications workers, filed a legal challenge in November 1997 in
the U.S. Court of Appeals against the FCC rules on human exposure to
radiofrequency radiation. Mark
Wilson, CWA's legal representative, said recently, "The President
of CWA is very concerned about protecting the health and safety of our
workers who are exposed to wireless radiation on a daily basis."
The CWA is objecting to the hazardous radiation exposure levels its
workers are subjected to under FCC's RF
guidelines.
A November 1998 letter from the president of USA Wireless Inc. to FCC
Chairman, William Kennard, raises the question regarding the current
industry standard. The
letter suggests the need for a "much more stringent standard than the
established Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)"
U.S.
exposure guidelines are not universally accepted (See International
Standards Attachment ) in many parts of the world. According to the FCC
"some
published exposure limits in Russia and some eastern European countries
have been generally more restrictive than existing or proposed
recommendations for exposure developed in North America and other parts
of Europe." Russian limits
for Radio Frequency and Microwave (RF/MW) radiation exposures are up to
100 times stricter than those in the U.S. and Western Europe.
In January 2000, Swiss health and environmental officials adopted
strict rules for public exposures from new sources of Radio Frequency
and Microwave (RF/MW) radiation. Switzerland
has one of the most stringent exposure guidelines in the world,
requiring power levels effectively 100 times lower than those of the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) and the American National Standards Institute.
Salzburg Austria is approximately 5800 times lower than the FCC
guidelines for cell phone radiation.
Health
officials in Canada are also concerned with regulations governing
potentially harmful radio frequencies in the air over Toronto. Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health (November, 1999)
urged the Board of Health to increase the safety margin a hundred-fold.
It is recommended, as an added margin of safety, that exposures
to the public be kept at least 100 times below (federal) exposure
limits. Basrur said radio
radiofrequency radiation has been demonstrated to have adverse effects
on the blood brain barrier, and some evidence suggests a link to
leukemia and other cancers. On December 6, 1999, the Board of Health
approved the Prudent Avoidance Policy recommended by Basrur.
That policy would impose an output limit on cellular base
stations of 100 times more stringent than the current Canadian
Safety
Code 6.
The
FCC guidelines suggest that manufacturers of transmitters that have
antennas located next to individual(s), as in the application of the
WLAN transmitter antenna, provide certain operating and warning usage
instructions. Those
instructions should be included in the operator's manual to caution
users to maintain a specific distance from the transmitter/antenna.
In addition, a warning label should be affixed to the
transmitter/antenna to caution users or other persons close to the
transmitter/antenna to limit exposure duration and/or maintain certain
specific usage conditions.
IEEE
802.11 Standard -- A Boilerplate or Matrix for an Engineering Design? To
ensure the compatibility of systems, the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) agreed on specific and uniform criteria, an
industry standard, for the design of wireless technology. In the hierarchy of rules for the design of other products in
its domain, IEEE assigned Section 802.11 to WLAN components.
This section stipulates that WLAN antennas are required to have a
certain number of channels; data can move at the rate of a specified
number of bits (electric pulses) in each antenna channel.
This frequency range is non-licensed, which means that industry
is not required to obtain a construction or operation license from the
Federal
Communication
Commission.
Presentations
made by industry to this writer referenced the IEEE 802.11 industry
standard. Many industry
representatives mistakenly inferred that since their products comply
with the IEEE 802.11 standard that automatically their products are safe
and without the threat of health issues from microwave exposure.
This writer also contacted members of the IEE 802.11 industry
standards committee requesting information on the health and safety
aspects. This writer
specifically requested information pertaining to specific absorption
rates (SAR) and power density of wireless LANs.
Mr. Vic Hayes of Lucent Technology and a member of the IEEE
802.11 standards committee supplied an IEEE.802.AA document.
The second and third paragraphs of the document address the
industry's opinion on health and safety.
"No
verified reports exist of injury to human beings who have been exposed
to electromagnetic fields within the limits of frequency and (specific
absorption rate) specified by previous ANSI standards, including
ANSI-C95 1-1982. Measurements
have shown that routine exposure of users and other persons to low-power
portable, mobile-power portable, mobile transceivers, and cellular
telephones do not induce rates of radio frequency absorption
that
exceed any of the maximum permissible rates of energy absorption defined
by these guidelines (IEEE ANSI). Therefore,
based on present knowledge, the exposures of low-power transceivers are
considered to be without risk for the user and the public."
The
August 2000, Volume 37, Number 8 edition of IEEE SPECTRUM online states
(See Attachment P) the following: "The body of research is
controversial in several respects. It includes many reports of effects
of RF fields on cells and animals, sometimes at low exposure levels,
which are understood and often not reproducible. It also includes a
scattering of reports of human effects from low-level exposure to RF-fields.
Standards-setting committees
while
acknowledging this research, has concluded that it provides insufficient
basis for exposure guidelines."
In
a letter to the FCC (See Attachment D), Margo T. Oge, Director, Office
of Radiation and Indoor Air with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) made the following responses concerning ANSI standards,
including ANSI-C95 1-1982.
"Therefore
the generalization that the 1992ANSI/IEEE
guidelines protect human beings from harm by any mechanism is not
justified." The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard is based on literature published
before 1986, except for a few papers on shock and burn.
While studies continue to be published describing biological
responses to non-thermal ELF modulated RF radiation, the effects
information is not yet sufficient to be used as a basis for exposure
criteria to protect the public against adverse human health effects."
Norbert
Hankin serves as Chairman for the Radiofrequency Interagency work group
(RFIAWG). RFIAWG is comprised of several U.S. agencies including
FDA/Radiation Biology Branch, National Institute for Occupational
Safety, EPA, OSHA Health Response Team, and NTIA/Department of Commerce.
On June 17, 1999, the Radio Frequency Inter-Agency Work Group (RFIAWG)
issued a Guidelines Statement that concluded the present RF/MW standard:
In particular, the RFIAWG criticized the existing standards as not
taking into account chronic, as opposed to acute exposures, modulated or
pulsed radiation (digital or pulsed RFR), time-averaged measurements
that may erase the unique characteristics of an intensity-modulated RF
radiation that may be responsible for reported biologic effects, and
stated the need for a comprehensive review of long-term, low-level
exposure studies, neurological-behavioral effects and micronucleus assay
studies (showing
genetic
damage from low-level microwave RFR).
The
existing federal standards are deficient in critical areas and
need
to be updated. The areas
of improvement where changes are needed include:
a) selection of an adverse effect level for chronic exposures
not based on tissue heating and considering modulation effects;
b) recognition of different safety criteria for acute and chronic
exposures at non-thermal or low-intensity levels;
c) recognition of deficiencies in using time-averaged
measurements of RF/MW that does not differentiate between
intensity-modulated RF and continuous wave (CW) exposure, and
therefore does not adequately protect the public.
This
writer also spoke with W. Gregory Lotz, Ph.D., Chief, Physical Agents
Effects Branch Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science NIOSH (MS
C-27) for The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
and NIOSH's representative to the Radiofrequency Interagency Group.
When questioned about the health and safety concerns of the WLAN
computer in the classroom environment, Dr. Lotz stated his personal
opinion, "while we still don't have all the answers on this issue, it
would be advisable to use the Precautionary Principle."
"The
Precautionary Principle is an important guiding principle in handling
inevitable scientific uncertainty, especially in situations of
potentially irreversible or catastrophic impacts" (UNESCO, 1999).
Consistent with the Precautionary Principle, Dr. Lotz also
indicated that a hard-wired portable classroom connected to a rooftop
antenna would be a safer option than wireless-laptops, work stations,
and base stations in a classroom environment.
The
author also spoke with a Senior Scientist, Norbert Hankin, of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Department.
The writer discussed possible wireless-portable classroom
scenario with Mr. Hankin. When questioned about the health and safety concerns of the
wireless computer in the classroom scenario, Mr. Hankin said, "In my
personal opinion, I wouldn't do it." He further stated that there are
animal studies showing health issues with short-term exposures to
non-ionizing microwave. Mr. Hankin expressed concern about children who would be
close to transmitting antenna(s) (wireless-laptops, work stations, and
base stations) and exposed to prolonged low intensity transmissions.
Mr. Hankin suggested that the hard-wired portable classroom
scenario, connected to a rooftop antenna, was a safer way to go.
In
May 2000, the American Cancer Society bulletin states, "No solid
evidence yet exists regarding cell phones and cancer".
Cell phone technology is new, "data from large studies are
not yet available on long term use." The bulletin also states,
"that a scientific panel that was commissioned by the government of
Britain to evaluate research to date on health risks of cell
phones,
warns that children may be at greater risk of injury from cell phone
radiation because their central nervous system, including the brain is
still developing. The group, The Independent Expert Group on Mobile
Phones, contends that while most studies have found few, if any, health
risks from cell phones, research has not proven conclusively that cell
phones are safe, particularly for children."
According
to the conclusion of Britain's Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones
Summary & Recommendations- Report -Mobile Phones and Health:
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say
that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines,
is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps
in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
The
U.S. Food and Drug Administration opinion as to the safety of cell phone
radiation as of February 2000 states, In February of 2000, Russell D.
Owen, Chief of the Radiation Biology Branch of the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, FDA commented that there is: "currently
insufficient scientific basis for concluding whether wireless
communication technologies pose any health risk." "Little is known about
the possible health effects of repeated or long-term exposures to low
level RF of the sort emitted by such (wireless communication) devices." "Some
animal studies suggest the possibility for such low-level exposures to
increase the risk of cancer"Although Dr. Owen's comments appear to be
directed primarily to users of cell phones, the same questions are
pertinent for long-term RF/MW exposure from antenna sites (Epidemiology
Vol. 1, No. 2, March 2000, Commentary).
The
National Toxicology Program is a part of the National
Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes
of
Health. It has requested comments on whether to add
radiofrequency/microwave
radiation to its list of substances to be
tested
as carcinogens. The FDA
made a recommendation to the NTP
urging
that RF/MW be tested for carcinogenicity
(www.fda.gov.us).
It is based in part on written testimony
stating:"
Animal experiments are crucial because meaningful data
will
not be available from epidemiological studies for many years
due
to the long latency period between exposure to a carcinogen
and
the diagnosis of a tumor." "There is currently insufficient
scientific
basis for concluding either that wireless communication
technologies
are safe or that they pose a risk to millions of
users."
"FCC radiofrequency radiation guidelines are based on
protection
from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure
and
may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of
chronic
exposures." Further, the FDA notes that for mobile phone
users:"
The 84 million mobile phone subscribers and the 25,000
that
sign up daily translates into a potentially significant
health
problem should the use of these devices even slightly
increase
the risk of adverse health effects."
Areas
of Concern
Wireless
technology is relatively new and many diseases, especially cancer, have
latency periods of 6 to 10 years before tumors and other symptom
surface. According to
research, information regarding health and safety exposures from
microwave radiation are dependent upon several compounding elements.
1)
The first element is the amount of time a person is exposed to microwave
transmitters. In the
wireless portable classroom LAN environment, the exposure to children
from microwave radiation starts the moment the students enter the
portable classroom. The
exposure to microwave radiation does not end until students leave the
portable or move outside the perimeter of the wireless network of
microwave radiation antennas and transmitters that most
likely
extend beyond the boundaries of the portable classrooms.
A
child entering the school system in Kindergarten could face the
potential for 13 years of microwave exposure emanating from WLAN
transmitters while attending K-12 schools.
Teachers and other school district personnel might have an even
longer exposure period resulting from a professional career in a
wireless school district environment.
Wireless school campuses that are in close proximity to nearby
residential areas risk exposing the children
and
their families to microwave radiation in their homes depending on how
those wireless networks/antennas and power output is implemented.
2)
The next area of concern is the distance between the transmitters and
the person. Exposure and
absorption of non-ionizing radiation are greatest next to a transmitting
antenna. In the wireless
portable classroom WLAN environment, transmitters and antennas can be
located on the computer, printer, ceiling, walls, on the outside of the
portable classroom, and on the outside of the main campus building.
The exposure distances a child might encounter from a
transmitting antenna(s) could vary depending on how the classroom
environment is designed. A
child can be as close as 1.5 feet when operating a wireless computer or
when playing near an outdoor omni-directional transmitting antenna.
Outside antennas can also expose children in a classroom to
microwave radiation even though the antenna is mounted outside.
Microwave radiation radiates through the walls of most structures
depending on construction materials.
A good example of this is the cell phone.
In many instances, cell phones can be used within a building
because the wireless microwave signal radiates through the walls of the
building. The U.S.
government recommends affixing exposure warning labels to each
transmitter and antenna of microwave transmitting devices, warning
people to keep safe distances from transmitters/antennas.
The government also has requested the wireless industry to
include information in their owner's operating manuals about over
exposure. Children, who would be exposed, may not be able to read or
follow these instructions.
Dr.
Neil Cherry, a biophysicist and an elected official in New Zealand, said
that studies indicate that non-ionizing radiation causes everything from
cancer in lab rats to neurological changes in humans.
Dr. Cherry stated that human beings are very good conductors of
microwave transmitted signals. This
means that most microwave signals radiate through us and are absorbed
with very little going to the main transmission point.
He further states that this technology should be redesigned not
to radiate into us, and go directly to the main transmission site.
Living organisms are themselves electromagnetic instruments of
great sensitivity that can support a variety of electrical vibrations;
these can be interfered with by external radiation - both at microwave
and very much lower (ELF) frequencies - in a number of ways, from which
adverse health effects can follow.
3)
The frequency of the microwave radiation is another important element.
The microwave radio signals that are being discussed for SBBC classrooms
are located in the 2.4 GHz band range.
The 2.4 GHz band frequency is two to three times higher than a
cell phone. In some
instances, this technology can also operate in the 5 GHz frequency band.
Researchers tell us that what concerns them is that these higher
radio frequencies compounded with power density, length of exposure,
distance from antennas, and absorption rates may produce adverse
effects. The body is
comprised of 65% of its weight in water and has a higher absorption rate
to radiofrequency radiation. Radiation absorption is commonly referred
to as Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).
The rate of absorption of radiofrequency radiation into the body
depends on the frequency of the radiation.
Research scientists, such as Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia
University, are calling for biologically based standards in order to
prevent harmful exposure conditions, which occur at certain frequencies.
According to a study conducted by a University of Utah scientist,
Om Gandhi, and published in 1996, greater distribution and penetration
of microwave radio frequency radiation was found in the heads of
5-
and 10-year-old children than those of adults using a cell phone.
Significantly larger amounts of the radiation was absorbed by children
as compared to the absorption rates of adults.
At
University of Washington, Lai and Singh (1996) showed single and double
DNA breaks and long- and short-term memory loss in laboratory animals
exposed to radiofrequency radiation.
Lai said, "because mobile phone RF penetrates deeper into a
child's brain, more brain tissue would be exposed."
He added that not all brain cells have been developed in
children,
with some cells in the cerebellum (in the back of the brain) taking 10
years to develop. Cumulative
damages in DNA may in turn affect cell functions.
DNA damage that accumulates in cells over a period of time may be
the cause of slow onset diseases, such as cancer (See Attachment I). The
Motorola funded group headed by Joseph Roti Roti was unsuccessful at
duplicating Lai's findings when using a different, less sensitive method
to measure DNA breaks. However, during his study Roti Roti unexpectedly
found an effect from the radiofrequency radiation (an oncogene, genes
related to cancer development).
Research
has shown that exposure to microwave emissions from a transmission tower
demonstrate significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced
memory function in students in a close by school (Chiang, 1989).
A study by Dr. Lai at the
University of Washington (1996,
2000) showed long- and short-term memory loss in rats
from 2.45 GHz
microwaves.
A
study conducted by Professor Leif Salford (1997), neurologist, stated: "We
saw the opening of the blood-brain barrier even after a short exposure
to radiation at the same level as mobile phones.
We are not sure yet whether this is a harmful effect, but it
seems that molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the
blood while the phone is switched on and cross into the brain.
Within two minutes of exposure, the rat's brain tissue was found
to be opened up to proteins and toxins contained in the blood after the
defense mechanism was disabled. " Salford
found that the blood brain barrier opened at exposure levels 4,000 times
lower than the current FCC guidelines.
4)
The power output levels from the wireless microwave radiation devices is
the fourth safety element to be considered.
The conventional method of measuring exposure is called power
density. Power density as
defined by the FCC as "power per unit area".
Power density is expressed in terms of milliwatts per square
centimeter or microwatts per square centimeter.
When
industry vendors, engineers, and marketing officials were questioned
during their presentations to this writer, they were unfamiliar with key
health and safety aspects of their products.
Industry representatives were unaware or confused regarding the
standards and guidelines. None of the vendors knew the power density of their products
nor were they familiar with the term.
One vendor admitted wireless technology was new to him, while
another
commented that they were aware of health effects but claimed none.
Health
and Safety Issues
The
Wireless Industry conducted extensive research on cell phone health and
safety risks for six years, under contract with the Wireless Technology
Research Group (WTR). Dr.
George Carlo, Ph.D., M.S.J.D.
former Director of the WTR, a now defunct organization, recently
in Washington DC, gave an advanced look on his research results in a
series of multimedia interviews. A formal report has yet to be released.
To the surprise of the industry, which funded the $27 million
research program, the results indicated health issues from exposure to
wireless technologies. The
lack of responsiveness by industry to the WTR report caused Dr. Carlo to
write to the Chairman and CEO of AT&T, Mr. C.
Michael Armstrong.
The
following sentences were extracted from Dr. Carlo's letter:
"The rate
of death from brain cancer among hand held phone users was higher than
the rate of brain cancer deaths among those who used non hand held
phones that were away from their head.
Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that
appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to
protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety. The
question of wireless phone safety is unclear.
Therefore, from a public health perspective, it is critical for
consumers to have the information they need to make an informed judgment
about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of
wireless phones."
Seventeen
scientists of international standing have signed the 1998 Vienna
Resolution, that the biological effects from low-intensity exposures are
scientifically established and undermine the validity of current safety
guidelines; while during June of 2000, in Salzburg, Austria, an
international conference was convened to discuss radiation studies
relevant to wireless communications and data.
Libby
Kelley, former public health policy analyst at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, who now directs the Council on Wireless
Technology Impacts, calls for greater caution regarding the introduction
of wireless signals and devices near our children.
She says, "until we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this
technology can be safely used by children, we are behaving like
irresponsible adults by treating our children as guinea pigs in this
uncontrolled experiment."
Liability
and Lloyd's of London
According
to an article titled UK Insurers Balk at Risks of Phones by Sarah Ryle,
a consumer affairs correspondent for The Observer, London, describes
concerns about the safety of mobile phones which has prompted a leading
Lloyd's underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the
risk of damage to users' health. The
move comes amid mounting concern about the industry's influence on
research into the long-term effects of using a mobile phone.
The London market provides insurance for everything from aircraft
to football players' legs. But
fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses, such as cancer and
Alzheimer's disease, have prompted John Fenn, of underwriting group
Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being
sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term
damage.
New research published last year by Bristol University scientist
Dr. Alan Preece showed a 'highly significant' effect from mobile phone
signals on brain function
Another
opinion offered by journalist Charles Moore of Mac Opinion states the
following: "However, I am suggesting that the issue of wireless
networking ought to be addressed with a lot more prudent caution than
seems to be the case. The
thought of classrooms full of schoolchildren using Airport equipped
iMacs or iBooks day in and day out, being exposed to radio frequency
emissions at close range, makes me distinctly uneasy given the level of
ignorance on this issue."
The
roll out of wireless LAN technology appears to be in the early stages of
development, hence wireless LANs have not, at this stage, fully matured.
Industry standards for both hardware and software have been under debate
for years. Industry
standards are still evolving; One example is frequency hopping/direct
sequence ruling process now before the FCC (FCC ET Docket No.99-231) .
The FCC will be issuing its ruling on ET Docket No.99-231 on or
after June 2000. The ruling
will decide the issue of frequency expansion
requested
by some manufacturers and contested by others.
The FCC uses guidelines for the health and safety aspects of this
wireless license-less technology. Please
note that guidelines are voluntary.
Presentations
made to this writer by the industry representatives demonstrated the
newness with many aspects of this technology, especially the health and
safety aspects. The writer
has requested power density and specific absorption rates of each
company's wireless product. The requests were made during and after wireless vendor
presentations, phone calls to vendors, and e-mails.
So far, all wireless companies have failed to furnish this writer
with the requested information.
The
Los Angeles Unified School Board (Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation
Waiver of Board Rule 72) as of June 2000, passed a resolution opposing
the future placement of cellular telecommunication towers on or adjacent
to school property because of the potential health effect. California
PUC issued an advisory on siting towers near schools and residences in
1995 which is not being enforced
Questions
1.
In light of the current scientific controversy surrounding microwave/radiofrequency
radiation, what kind of financial liability would a school system incur
if long-term exposure to wireless communications is found to cause
cancer or other disorders? (See CIOs warned of cell phone risks)
2.
If a decision is made to move forward with wireless LANS, what is the
responsibility of the district relative to disclosing any potential
risks to parents, employees, and the public at large?
3.
Since the level of risk is yet to be defined, what procedures should be
adapted by a school district to integrate this technology into the
classroom in the safest possible manner?
4.
The issue of exposure of children and others to radio frequency
radiation (RFR) is currently being discussed by those in the legal
profession. A plaintiff could request punitive damages on the grounds
that the defendants knew or should have known that RF radiation is
harmful to human health, and that defendants failed to take affirmative
steps to prevent exposure that
was
at harmful levels. Thus, could the potential liability for doing nothing
can be very high?
5.
Are there safer alternatives?
6.
On what criteria should the school district make the decision to place wireless
technology within its classrooms and schools?
7.
If cost savings is the determinant factor in this decision, what level
of health risk is acceptable in a broad scale deployment of wireless
technologies in environments populated largely by children, who will
subjected to long periods of exposure to microwave radiation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International
Standards for Cell Phone Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation
Exposure
standards for public exposure to RF/MW radiation at cell phone
frequencies in other countries is, in some cases, substantially lower
than the US and Canadian limits (Table 1).
The World Health Organization EMF Research Program is involved in
a multi-year effort to review RF/MW health effects and make
recommendations for exposure standards. In the interim, other countries around the world show
considerable variation in what they consider safe exposure levels:
-
Saltzberg
(pulsed)................................ 0.1 microwatts per centimeter
squared
-
China...................................................6.6
microwatts per centimeter squared
-
Russia..................................................10
microwatts per centimeter squared
-
Italy.....................................................10
microwatts per centimeter squared
-
Switzerland..........................................4.2
microwatts per centimeter squared
-
Auckland,
New Zealand......................50 microwatts per centimeter squared
-
United
States ..................................around
580 microwatts per centimeter squared
-
Canada
............................................around 580
microwatts per centimeter squared
There
is substantial controversy among regulatory agencies in the federal
government over the RF/MW exposure standards now in effect. A growing body of scientific evidence has linked RF/MW
exposure to biological effects and health effects at levels lower than
current FCC RF/MW standards allow.
With respect to pulsed RFR, amplitude-modulated RFR and chronic
low-level exposure there is uncertainty about risk, and no presumptive
assurance or
warranty
of safety can be made (see FDA and US Government Radiofrequency
Interagency Working Group comments above).
|