ABSTRACT
ECOLOGY OF MOBILE COMMUNICATION
The communicative ecology model enables researchers to take a holistic approach to understanding the dynamic interrelationships between social dimensions, discourse and communications technology in both physical and digital environments. The use of an ecological metaphor markedly expands the potential sphere of inquiry for communications and media research. It shifts the focus away from studies focusing on single communications devices or applications, for example the mobile telephone or email, towards whole system interactions. Consequently, it extends the possibility of research into population change and lifecycles, networks and clusters, and power relations within the frame of a communicative ecology. The concept of communicative ecology has emerged amidst concerns that studies attempting to identify causal relationships between discrete technologies and social impacts neglect variables that are salient to the successful implementation and uptake of technologies. New media are usually introduced into existing communication structures and must compete for attention in relation to the users existing portfolio of communication tools. Consequently, if a new communication technology does not complement or enhance the existing toolset it risks rejection. However, the potential utility of the communicative ecology model is far broader than this. Any new form of social intervention, content or technology must be locally appropriate for it to succeed . Hence, the communicative ecology framework is useful for human-computer interaction designers.
The effect of mobile phone radiation on human health is the subject of recent interest and study, as a result of the enormous increase in mobile phone usage throughout the world Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation. In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified mobile phone radiation . That means that there "could be some risk" , so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be [Link] national radiation advisory authorities have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.
Effects
Many scientific studies have investigated possible health symptoms of mobile phone radiation. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. A recent assessment was published in 2007 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health
Risks (SCENIHR).[5] It concludes that the three lines of evidence, viz. animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans".
Radiation absorption
Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted[dubious discuss] by a GSM handset can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts. .[citation needed] Other digital mobile technologies, such as CDMA2000 and D-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt.[dubious discuss] The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard and by the regulatory agencies in each country.[citation needed] In most systems the cellphone and the base station check reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate different situations, such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles.[dubious discuss] The rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body is measured by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used, comparisons between different measurements cannot be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves. SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with
other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.[6] It is worth noting that thermal radiation is not comparable to ionizing radiation in that it only increases the temperature in normal matter, it does not break molecular bonds or release electrons from their atoms.
Thermal effects
One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight. The brain's blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow. However, the cornea of the eye does not have this temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 23 hours duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41C. There were no cataracts detected in the eyes of monkeys exposed under similar conditions.[7] Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones.
Non-thermal effects
The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in lowfrequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate.[8] Some researchers have argued that socalled "non-thermal effects" could be
reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example,[9] has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures. Other researchers believe the stress proteins are unrelated to thermal effects, since they occur for both extremely low frequencies (ELF) and radio frequencies (RF), which have very different energy levels.[10] Another preliminary study published in 2011 by The Journal of the American Medical Association conducted using fluorodeoxyglucose injections and positron emission tomography concluded that exposure to radiofrequency signal waves within parts of the brain closest to the cell phone antenna resulted in increased levels of glucose metabolism, but the clinical significance of this finding is unknown.[11][12] Bloodbrain barrier effects Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Persson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of albumin into the brain via a permeated bloodbrain barrier.[13][14] This confirms earlier work on the blood brain barrier by Allan Frey, Oscar and Hawkins, and Albert and Kerns.[15] Other groups have not confirmed these findings in in vitro cell studies[16] or whole animal studies.[17]
Cancer06 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[18] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt fr Strahlenschutz) considers this report inconclusive.[19] The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
The 13 nation INTERPHONE project the largest study of its kind ever undertaken has now been published and did not find a solid link between mobile phones and brain tumour.
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population, continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting; and recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting. The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Health hazards of base stations
Africa for example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations. Several surveys have found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who live close to base stations.[64][65][66][67][68] However, there are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[69] Self-report studies can also be vulnerable to the nocebo effect. Two double-blind placebo-controlled trials conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[70] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[71] The Essex study found that subjects were unable to tell whether they were being exposed to electromagnetic fields or not, and that sensitive subjects reported lower well-being independently of exposure. The principal investigator concluded "It is clear that sensitive individuals are suffering real symptoms and often have a poor quality of life. It is now important to determine what other factors could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and treatment strategies can be developed." Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres.[72] This recommendation was modified in 2003[73] to say that antennas located within a 100metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.[74] The Agence franaise de scurit sanitaire environnementale currently says that there is no demonstrated short term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long term effects, and that it's easy to reduce
A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony Another area of concern is the radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such as base stations and their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of transmitters because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance. One popular design of mobile phone antenna is the sector antenna, whose coverage is 120 degrees horizontally and about +-5 degrees from the vertical. Because base stations operate at less than 100 watts, the radiation at ground level is much weaker than a cell phone due to the power relationship appropriate for that design of antenna. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (see Safety standards and licensing below). Some countries however (such as South
exposure via technological improvements.[75]
the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.[77] Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation. Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities. The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety". Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain "sensitive areas" (classrooms, for example).[78] On 1 September 2012, India set electromagnetic frequency exposure limit for all mobile phone base stations to one tenth of the existing ICNIRP exposure level. Telecom Enforcement Resource & Monitoring (TERM) cells will audit the self-certification provided by the mobile network operators.[79]
Occupational health hazards
Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etcetera, may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, but the power being sent through to the antennas is cut off, so that the workers do not have to work near live antennas. A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results (reduced cancer rates) also occurred.[76]
Safety standards and licensing
In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for
Precaution
Precautionary principle
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[87] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and as low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern.[88] They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.[citation
needed]
mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting. Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[4] France,[89] Germany,[90] and Sweden,[91] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:
Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head. Keep the mobile phone away from the body. Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna. Use mobile radiation tracking apps have been developed to help to mitigate exposure[92]
The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[93] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[94] and others for the French lAgence franaise de scurit sanitaire environnementale[95] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[96] Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[97]
References
Precautionary measures and health advisories
In May 2011, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it was classifying electromagnetic fields from 1. ^ "Market Data Summary (Q2 2009)". GSM Association. Retrieved 2010-01-30. 2. ^ a b "IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans" (PDF) 3. ^ "[Link] actsheets/fs193/en/ 4. ^ "Conclusions on mobile phones and radio frequency fields". European Commission 5. ^ For example, two listings using the European 10 g standard: of more current models at "Mobile Phones UK". Mobile Phones UK web site. Landmark Internet Ltd.