Invited paper Tony Atkins

8/8/2019 Invited paper Tony Atkins

1/7

Mobile technology: the global risk experiment

D. S. Hickey, A. S. Atkins, AK Hairul Nizam Pengiran Haji Ali

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology, Octagon, Staffordshire University, Beaconside, Stafford, ST16 9DG,

England. (email [email protected],[email protected], [email protected])

Abstract The rapid expansion of wireless technology is

proceeding without complete knowledge of the underlying heath

effects. Safety considerations suggest that individuals and

organisations control exposure to RF emissions. This paper

briefly describes some health concerns and practical methods to

minimise exposure.

I INTRODUCTION

Mobile technology offers a new platform of wireless

communication and data transfer that supports both the

changing lifestyle and commercial activities of modern day

society. Mobile phones and wireless technology such as

Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) and Worldwide Interoperability forMicrowave Access (WiMax) are generating new

technological developments including applications in e-

commerce and m-commerce. Consequently, mobile

companies are promoting the use of mobile broadband

systems to introduce mobile television, multimedia, games,

and online commerce using mobile phones.

Health and safety issues are of increasing concern, such as the

effects of Radiofrequency (RF) radiation that mobile devices

emit during data transfer. Mobile phone users are exposed to

carrier frequency wavelengths of around 2 Gigahertz (Ghz)

and an associated modulation wave encoding the data.

Exposure to such emitted radio frequencies can generate athermal or heating effect within the tissues especially those of

the head. The potential for deleterious health effects [1] from

heating and induced currents has led to the suggestion that

prolonged use of mobile phones and similar RF based

technologies could cause cancer [2][3]. Even if the direct

thermal effect were small, associated mechanisms such as

induction of heat shock proteins may provide a pathological

mechanism [4]. There is currently an increasing exposure to

radio frequencies associated with the introduction of base

station transmitters, (cellular and WiMax base stations) in

urban areas, Wi-fi hotspots in cafes, and particularly the

rapidly increasing number of mobile phone users. Fig 1

provides a graphical indication of the relative strength andarea of exposure of the different modalities. Addressing both

the direct and indirect [5] health effects associated with

increasing RF exposure is therefore essential to ensure the

safety of the exposed population in a mobile technology

environment.

Fig 1. A graphical representation of the spatial range and frequencies

used in mobile applications [6].

II SOURCES OF RF EXPOSURE

Mobile Phone Handsets

Users of mobile phone handsets can receive a larger RF peak

exposure than people living close to a cellular phone base

station. With technological progress, the number of RF activecomponents carried by a person is increasing, as devices are

incorporated into clothing and other accessories. Biological

considerations suggest that the carrier frequency should be

considered separately from the effect of the encoding

frequency distribution [7][8][9]. However, the handset

transmits RF energy only when a call is being made or

infrequently to link to local base stations, whereas base

stations are continuously transmitting signals.

Mobile phones are low-powered RF transmitters, emitting

maximum signal strength typically in the range of 0.2 to 0.6

watts. Other hand-held radio transmitters may emit 10 watts

or more. Since the RF field strength decays with an inverse

square law, the exposure rapidly decreases with distance from

the transmitter. A mobile phone close to, or touching, the head

generates more RF heating than one held a short distance

away. Similarly, the RF exposure of subjects standing nearby

is usually considered negligible.

A particular factor relating to RF expose from mobile phones

is the Specific-energy Absorption Rate (SAR). The specific

absorption rate is a measure of the energy absorbed in the


2/7

head or body of the user [10]. The absorbed energy depends

upon the design of the phone in addition to its power output.

Maximum temperature increases reported in the ear can vary

from about 0.22C to 0.43C [11]. The corresponding

temperature increase in the brain varies from about 0.08C to

0.19C. These steady-state temperatures are measured

following approximately 50 min of direct exposure. Finally,

the reported maximum temperature in the external part of the

brain is an increase of from 0.10C to 0.16C proportional toeach 1 W/kg of SAR per gram of brain tissue .

Non-thermal effects reported include DNA strand breakage in

cultured human diploid fibroblasts and cultured rat granulosa

cells [12]. RF exposure at 1800 MHz and SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg

induced DNA single- and double-strand breaks. Breaks

occurred after 16 hour exposure in both cell types and at

different mobile-phone RF modulations. Since intermittent

exposure produced a stronger response than continuous

exposure, the induced DNA damage is not directly related to

thermal effects.

Attempts to minimise RF esposure from handsets hasproduced a range of shielding devices [13]. However, current

evidence suggest small shielding devices are ineffective

[14][15]. People considering the use of shielding technology

might be advised to ensure that the reduction is signal strength

and SAR has been verified by direct measurement.

Base Station Emissions

The UK Independent Expert Committee on RF emissions

concluded, in 2000, that there was no general risk to the

health of people living near base stations as the expected

exposures were low [16]. They included a caveat that indirect

adverse effects might occur in some sensitive individuals.

Mobile phone base stations transmission levels vary with the

size of the cell over which they operate; power levels range

from a few watts to more than 100 watts. Typical base station

antennae are mounted 15 to 50 metres above the ground and

are about a metre long and 20-30 cm in width. The beam

emitted by a base station is intentionally broad in the

horizontal direction to maximise signal coverage. However,

base stations typically produce RF beams that are tightly

constrained in the vertical direction, as illustrated in Fig 2.

This constrained beam means that the RF signal over the

ground near to the base station is low. As the beam expands in

the vertical direction, the RF field intensity at ground level

increases slightly with the distance from the base station and

more of the beam hits the ground. As the distance from the

base station increases further, the signal strength decreases

consistent with the inverse square law of RF emissions. The

design of the RF beam thus limits the maximum RF exposure

from the base stations signal while giving a large area of

signal coverage.

Fig 2. Graphical representation of the vertical beam from a base

station mast. Note that the area close to the antenna is outside the

main beam.

There are three types of base station considered: macrocells,

microcells and picocells. Macrocells provide the core of the

base station network and have power outputs measured in tens

of watts. They can communicate directly with phones over a

35 kilometres radius. By the year 2000, there were

approximately 20,000 macrocells in the UK and the number

of transmitters was increasing. The available measurements

suggest that direct exposures of the UK population to RF

carrier waves from macrocell transmitters are far lower than

existing exposure guidelines [16]. However, some macrocell

base stations may produce higher than normal RF emissionsand the exposure to the population is expected to increase

with time.

Smaller microcell base stations are used to fill gaps in the

main (macrocell) network. Microcell base stations have a

lesser power output than macrocells and cover a radius of a

few hundred metres. They are also placed in areas with a high

volume of transmissions and can be used to address the

problem of areas with low signal penetration from macrocell

base stations. Microcells are often placed on public buildings

including airports, schools and shopping complexes. It is

claimed that microcell emissions of RF carrier waves are

within the current safety guidelines provided the outer

shielding case is intact.[16]Picocell base stations have an RF

output of a few watts and are often contained within

buildings.

The RF signal can be measured using power metres, while

spectrum analysers estimate the signal strength at a range of

frequencies [17][18]. RF measurement equipment is widely

available and in many areas may be hired more effectively

than purchased when required for limited or brief studies.

Note that the measurement should include estimation of the

peak data transfer levels as well as the power of the carrier

frequency.

III RF EMISSIONS

Mobile phones and other electronic devices emit a range of

radiofrequencies, as illustrated in Fig 3. On standby, the RF

emissions are low. The carrier wave used to transmit

information during communication is in the region of 1-3

GHz. GSM mobile phones use frequencies around 0.80.9

GHz and 1.83 GHz, while Bluetooth and General Packet

Radio Service (GPRS) mobile carrier waves are

approximately 2.45 GHz. Wireless network systems


3/7

compatible with both the IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g

standards use frequencies around 2.4 GHz. Higher frequencies

of 3 GHz and above are utilised by 3G phone technologies.

Frequencies from 5.15-5.875 GHz are used for IEEE 802.11a,

Wi-fi and cordless phone technologies. Within these ranges,

each network operator has a specific radio frequency band

allocation.

Fig 3. A diagram illustrating devices and their approximatefrequency range [6].

Microwaves heat biological tissues over a range of

frequencies. The microwave frequency range is separated

arbitrarily into ultra-high frequency (UHF) signals from 0.33

GHz, super high frequency (SHF) signals from 3 to 30 GHz,

and extremely high frequency (EHF) signals from 30 to 300

GHz.

Microwave ovens operate by depositing microwave radiation

at frequencies are similar to those used in mobile

communications. Household microwaves typically use a

frequency around 2.45 GHz which is deposited into biological

tissues (food) to produce local heating. Some large industrial

microwave heating systems operating around 0.9 GHz range.

Water and many other small biological molecules are electric

dipoles containing separated electrical charges, which absorb

microwave energy by dielectric heating. Dielectric heating

arises when the alternating RF wave rotates polar molecules,

such as H2O. The molecule rotates to align with the

alternating electric field induced by the microwave signal.

The result is a molecular movement and jiggling as molecules

interact with the induced motion. Heating by microwave

radiation is efficient in water, which consists of a small

molecule with a significant dipole. Since the human bodys

soft tissue contains up to 70% water [19] it is potentially

subject to RF heating effects.

IV RF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS

The potential for tissue heating by RF radiation has been a

cause of some popular concern [20] However, non-thermal

effects can induce biological changes and also present

potential safety considerations [9]. Moreover, such non-

thermal effects are not considered in setting government

guidelines. Several non-thermal biological effects have been

described [21][22] and could be explained by changes in

protein conformation as a response to transient heat shock

with pulsed radiation [23]. Research in this area has been

influenced by research into the potential use of RF weapons in

the later half of the 20th century. Russian reports suggest that

chronic RF exposure, below 10 mW/cm and even below 1

mW/cm, can have damaging health effects but the published

experiments do not follow accepted practice for research in

the west [24]. Animal experiments suggest that pulsed

microwave radiation (plane-wave fields of 900 MHz with a

pulse repetition frequency of 217 Hz and a pulse width of 0.6

ms) can induce lymphoma in susceptible mice. The incident

power densities were 2.6-13 W/M2 with specific absorption

rates of 0.008-4.2 W/kg (averaging 0.13-1.4 W/kg) [25].

However, other studies show no tumorigenic effects [26][27]and a lack of a behavioural response in rodents to pulsed

microwaves [28].

There is a measurable physiological response in humans to

applied RF radiofrequency fields, which varies with the

frequency and field strength [29][30][31]. In particular, low

frequency and pulse modulated RF radiation is associated

with biological effects [32][33][34]. These pulsed frequencies

correspond to the data transmission signal in mobile

communications rather than the carrier frequency. They also

suggest that mobile phone emissions may be of greater health

significance than those from base stations [35], as the

exposure is greater. Slowing of heart rate, alternations in thelatency and amplitude of event-related electroencephalogram

(EEG) brain measures, occurred subjects exposed to a (9

kV/M, 20 T) radiofrequency field. Some subpopulations,

such as those suffering from migraines or epilepsy, may be

particularly susceptible to effects on brain blood flow and

EEG. However, full data on susceptible population subgroups

are not currently available.

A range of biological organisms including humans are

sensitive to brief exposures to low frequency electric fields

[36]. Indeed the US Air Force has a patent for inducing

subjective sound and voice signals encoded in RF signals

[37]. With acoustic noise

around 80 db, a peak RF powerdensity of approximately275 mW/ cm

2is required to induce

the perception of sound at carrier frequenciesof 425 MHz and

1,310 MHz [38]. The average power density can be atleast as

low as 400 W/cm2. The evidence for the various possible

sites for the corresponding electromagnetic energy sensor

suggests the location is not peripheral to the cochlea. This

microwave hearing effect, also known as the Frey effect,

appears to act by setting up a thermo-elastic wave of acoustic

pressure which is transmitted to the cochlear [39].


4/7

Guidelines

Government guidelines on RF exposure are available but are

currently based on limited information. The UK Government

has national guidelines determined by the National

Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), in 1993, on the

maximum permissible levels of exposure to RF radiation [7].

In 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing

Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) provided guidelines for

permissible exposure to RF radiation. In 1999, year theICNIRP guidelines were included in a European Council

Recommendation. Both the ICNIRP and NRP guidelines were

based on the same core evidence. The degree of uncertainty is

illustrated by the maximum exposure levels determined by the

ICNIRP are approximately five times lower than those

recommended for employees. This more conservative

estimate derives from the potential that the population might

contain subjects who are particularly sensitive to the effects of

RF radiation. Moreover, by the year 2000, it was clear that

exposures below these guidelines may produce biological

effects [16].

Precautionary approachThe approach towards RF emission safety is generally

accepted to be guided by the precautionary principle.

However, use of the precautionary principle in this context

requires care if an unbiased assessment is to be provided [40].

The precautionary principle is that, in the absence of a

scientific consensus, if an action may cause severe or

irreversible harm to the population the burden of proof for the

acceptability of the action lies with the proponents. While

strict adherence to the precautionary principle is too

restrictive, a full risk assessment is also impractical. Risk

assessment implies quantifying the adverse consequences and

associated probabilities across the range of possible

frequencies and pulsed emissions convolved with the range ofpotential biological effects. A full quantitative assessment of

risk [41] is therefore impractical and the population is

currently engaged in a long-term experiment, in which the

risk will be assessed post hoc.

V DISCUSSION

The accumulating risks to an individual may be correlated

with the increasing frequency and duration of mobile phone

use resulting in prolonged exposure. This may be of particular

concern in peripatetic occupations requiring a high level of

communication, including mobile conferences and similar

activities. Young people, who may be more sensitive to

adverse effects, have been a particular concern, such as with

the potential for high data transfer rates in mobile and

wireless networking in schools [42].

The perceived precision in reports of dangers from mobile

phones is correlated with belief irrespective of the underlying

facts [43]. Other reported risks include answering a call while

fuelling a car at a gas station. This myth suggests that

answering a call in the presence of gas fumes will create a

spark. However, the originating reports [44][45] are currently

unverified and the associated risk is small. There are

anecdotal reports of mobile phone batteries being hazardous,

for example a Chinese worker in the iron ore industry

reportedly died from an explosion of his mobile phone [46].

The cause of the explosion was claimed to result from the use

of a counterfeit version of the mobile phones battery. The

exposure to the heat from the iron ore supposedly caused

chemical, or extra thermal, heating to the counterfeit battery

causing it to explode. A fragment of the mobile phonereportedly pierced into the victims heart when the mobile

phone exploded in his breast pocket [46].

Usability and Wearable Technologies

Some forms of direct physical stress and strain can develop

while using these mobile devices. These stresses include a

form of repetitive strain injury (thumb strain) when

manipulating a mobile, because of the un-ergonomic design of

the buttons [47]. Additional design considerations include the

small screens used in mobile phones, which can produce

eyestrain, depending whether the individual is myopic or

long-sighted. Consumers often complain about the screen size

and light glare, which can make the screen difficult to see. Inresponse, improvements in some newer phones relieve the

users stress and provide ergonomic accessories for mobile

devices to increase the customers comfort [48]. For

visualisation the screens are backlit, screen size is increased

and keypad spacing has sometimes increased. Other

improvements include rubber grips and side scrolling to make

users feel more at ease with their phones. Some of these

accessories, shown in Fig 4, have been implemented to

improve usability such as Bluetooth connected keyboard and

virtual infra-red keyboard.

Virtual Keyboard Portable Virtual Keyboard

Fig 4. Examples of wireless connected equipment are illustrated.Note that the range and quantity of such devices is increasing

rapidly.

Wearable technologies, as the name suggests, are mobile

devices or mobile technology that is implemented into

clothing or accessories [49][50]. In Fig 5, mobilecommunication systems built into clothing of the user are

illustrated. These items are already available in the market

and the use of such systems is expected to increase with time.


5/7

Wearable Technology Jacket Sunglasses+ Mp3 player

VI CONCLUSIONS

Microwave frequencies emitted from base stations and radio

frequencies that are found in mobile devices can trigger

biological effects. These effects may produce pathology,

especially in some susceptible members of the population.

Currently, there is insufficient information to validate the safe

levels of such exposure. Moreover, even quantifying the RF

frequency exposure for epidemiological investigations can

present difficulties in measurement [51].

The biological effects most studied are those arising from

induction of thermal stress in the tissues. Other biological

effects have been noted, but it is currently uncertain how these

will influence the health of susceptible members of the

population.

The location and arrangement of transmitter stations can be

selected to minimise population exposure while enabling

mobile communications. For this to be achieved a knowledge

of the beam characteristics of the station is required.

Moreover, the positioning can be checked by direct RF

measurement using power meters or spectrum analysers. Careis needed to allow for several RF sources in the same location.

People who may be particularly susceptible, such as epileptics

and migraineurs to changes in EEG or cerebral blood flow

should minimise their exposure. Those people who are

engaged in activities where mobile communication has

become essential can also reduce their exposure by taking

preventative action. This can be achieved by

Use of wearable technology such as Bluetooth Reducing close contact with the mobile devices

physically (for example dont sleep with your mobile

phone) Placing the receiver a distance from the most

susceptible tissues, which are believed to be in the

head or gonads.

Use of devices with RF shielding Using wireless headsets on the road Avoiding systems with a high RF output Measuring individual exposure levels

Until we learn the full biological, behavioural and medical

implications of massive exposure to RF emissions, taking

simple steps to minimise RF exposure is recommended.

References

1 Health Council of the Netherlands (2002) Mobile

telephones: an evaluation of health effects., The Hague.

2 Graham-Rowe D. (2002) New mobile phone cancer link,New Scientist News Service, 19 June.

3 Repacholi M.H. (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile

phones, Toxicol Lett, 120(1-3), 323-331.

4 French PW, Penny R, Laurence JA, McKenzie DR. (2001)

Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer,

Differentiation, 67(4-5), 93-97.

5 Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), 2001,

The Risk of Using a Mobile Phone While Driving,

Transport Local Government Regions (DTLR), pp. 1-34

6 Haji Ali A.H.N.P. (2007) Mobile Business Application

framework, MRes Thesis, Staffordshire University, England.

7 National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (2003) Biological effects of modulatedradiofrequency fields (NCRP commentary No. 18)., Bethesda,

MD.

8 Foster K.R. Repacholi M. (2004) Biological effects of

radiofrequency fields: Does modulation matter? Rad Res

162:219-225.

9 Hyland G.J. (2000) Physics and biology of mobile

telephony, Lancet, 356(9244), 1833-1836.

10 Anderson V. Joyner K.H. (1995) Specific absorption rate

levels measured in a phantom head exposed to radio

frequency transmissions from analog hand-held mobile

phones, Bioelectromagnetics, 16(1), 60-69.

11 Bernardi P. Cavagnaro M. Pisa S. Piuzzi E. (2000)

Specific absorption rate and temperature increases in the head

of a cellular-phone user, IEEE Transactions on Microwave

Theory and Techniques, 48(7), Part 1, 1118-1126.

12 Diema E. Schwarza C. Adlkoferb F. Jahna O. Rdigera H.

(2005) Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone

radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in

transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro, Mutation

Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental

Mutagenesis

583(2), 178-183.

13 Halttunen M. Korhonen P. (1997) Radio telephone with

compliant shield and method, US Patent number: 5603103.

14 Oliver J.P. Chou C.K. Balzano Q. (2003) Testing the

effectiveness of small radiation shields for mobile phones,

Bioelectromagnetics, 24(1), 66-69.15 Fung L.C. Leung S.W. Chan K.H. (2003) Experimental

study of SAR reduction on commercial products and shielding

materials in mobile phone applications, Microwave and

optical technology letters, 36(6), 419-422.

16 IEGMP (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile

Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, National Radiological

Protection Board (UK).


6/7

17 Carr J. (1999) Practical Radio Frequency Test and

Measurement: A Technician's Handbook, Newnes (Elsevier).

18 Fantom A. (1990) Radio Frequency and Microwave Power

Measurement, IEE Electrical Measurement Series, 7.

19 Goldstein A. Aronow L. Kalman S.M. (1974) Principles of

Drug Action,J Wiley & Sons, New York.

20 WHO (2000) Electromagnetic fields and public health:

mobile telephones and their base stations, Fact sheet N193,June.

21 Leszczynski D. Joenvr S. Reivinen J. Kuokka R. (2002)

Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress

pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial

cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain

barrier-related effects, Differentiation, 70(2-3), 120-129.

22 Verschaeve L. Maes A. (1998) Genetic, carcinogenic and

teratogenic effects of radiofrequency fields, Mutat Res,

410(2), 141-165.

23 Laurence J.A. French P.W. Lindner R.A. Mckenzie D.R.

(2000) Biological effects of electromagnetic fields--

mechanisms for the effects of pulsed microwave radiation on

protein conformation, J Theor Biol, 206(2), 291-298.24 Mcree D.I. (1980) Soviet and eastern European research

on biological effects of microwave radiation, Proceedings of

the IEEE, 68(1), 84- 91.

25 Repacholi M.H. Basten A. Gebski V. Noonan D. Finnie J.

Harris A.W. (1997) Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic

mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHZ electromagnetic fields,

Radiat Res, 147(5), 631-640.

26 Santini R. Hosni M. Deschaux P. Pacheco H. (1988) B16

melanoma development in black mice exposed to low-level

microwave radiation, Bioelectromagnetics, 9(1), 105-107.

27 Heikkinen P. Kosma V.M. Hongisto T. Huuskonen H.

Hyysalo P. Komulainen H. Kumlin T. Lahtinen T. Lang S.

Puranen L. Juutilainen J. (2001) Effects of mobile phone

radiation on X-ray-induced tumorigenesis in mice, Radiat

Res, 156(6). 775-785.

Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Hongisto T, Huuskonen H,

Hyysalo P, Komulainen H, Kumlin T, Lahtinen T, Lang S,

Puranen L, Juutilainen J.

28 Sienkiewicz Z.J. Blackwell R.P. Haylock R.G.E Saunders

R.D. Cobb B.L. (2000) Low-level exposure to pulsed 900

MHz microwave radiation does not cause deficits in the

performance of a spatial learning task in mice,

Bioelectromagnetics. 21(3), 151-158.

29 Graham C. Cook M.R. Cohen H.D. Gerkovich M.M.

(1994) Dose response study of human exposure to 60 Hz

electric and magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics, 15(5), 447-

463.30 Hossmann K.A. Hermann D.M. (2003) Effects of

electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central

nervous system, Bioelectromagnetics, 24(1), 49-62.

31 Hamblin D.L. Wood A.W. (2002) Effects of mobile phone

emissions on human brain activity and sleep variables, Int J

Radiat Biol, 78(8), 659-669.

32 Huber R. Treyer V. Borbly A.A. Schuderer J. Gottselig

J.M. Landolt H.P. Werth E. Berthold T. Kuster N. Buck A.

Achermann P. (2002) Electromagnetic fields, such as those

from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and

sleep and waking EEG, J Sleep Res, 11(4), 289-295.

33 Borbly A.A. Huber R. Graf T. Fuchs B. Gallmann E.

Achermann P. (1999) Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic

field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram,

Neurosci Lett, 275(3), 207-210.

34 Huber R. Graf T. Cote K.A. Wittmann L. Gallmann E.Matter D. Schuderer J. Kuster N. Borbly A.A. Achermann P.

(2000) Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic

field during waking affects human sleep EEG, Neuroreport,

11(15), 3321-3325.

35 Huber R. Treyer V. Schuderer J. Berthold T. Buck A.

Kuster N. Landolt H.P. Achermann P. (2005) Exposure to

pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields

affects regional cerebral blood flow, Eur J Neurosci, 21(4),

1000-1006.

36 Marino A.A. Becker R.O. (1977) Biological effects of

extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a

review, Physiol Chem Phys, 9(2), 131-147.

37 O'Loughlin J.P. Loree D.L. (2002) Apparatus for audiblycommunicating speech using the radio frequency hearing

effect, United States Patent 6587729, Assignee: The United

States of America represented by the Secretary of the Air

Force, Washington, DC.

38 Frey A.H. (1962) Human auditory system response to

modulated electromagnetic energy, J Appl Physiol, 17, 689-

692.

39 Lin J.C. Wang Z. (2007) Hearing of microwave pulses by

humans and animals: effects, mechanisms and thresholds,

Health Physics, The Radiation Safety Journal, 92(6):621-628.

40 Lin J.C. (2001) The precautionary principle: a rose by

another name [cellular radiohealth effects], Antennas and

Propagation Magazine, IEEE, 43(2), 129-131.

41 Byrd D.M. Cothern C.R. (2000) Introduction to Risk

Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Science-Based Decision

Making, Government Institutes Publishing, Rockville,

Maryland, US.

42 Bill Thompson (2007) Wi-fi? Why worry? BBC, Tuesday,

24 April, 07:37 GMT.

43 Grazioli S. Carrell R.C. (2002) Exploding phones and

dangerous bananas: perceived precision and believability of

deceptive internet messages found on the internet, Eighth

Americas Conference on Information Systems, Dysfunction in

Computer-Mediated Communication, 977-1984.

44 Mikkelson B., and Mikkelson, D. (2006) Fuelish

Pleasures, Snopes.com, Retrieved at 27 July 2007

45 Dennis T. (2003) Mobile phones safe in gas stations, TheInquirer, Friday 26 December, Retrieved at 27 July 2007.

46 Parthasarathy A. (2007) Worker dies after mobile

explodes, The Hindu, (Online edition), Saturday, 27 July.

47 Lyons K. Starner T. Plaisted D. Fusia J. Lyons A. Drew A.

Looney E.W. (2004) Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems archive

Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in

computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 671 678.


7/7

48 Sergio M. Manaresi N. Campi F. Canegallo R. Tartagni M.

Guerrieri, R.A (2003) dynamically reconfigurable monolithic

CMOS pressure sensor for smart fabric, IEEE Journal of

Solid-State Circuits, 38(6), 966-975.

49 Post E.R. Orth M. (1997) Smart Fabric, or "Wearable

Clothing" First International Symposium on Wearable

Computers (ISWC '97), 167-168.

50 Brewster S. Walker A. (2000) Non-visual interfaces forwearable computers, IEE Seminar Wearable Computing, 145,

6-7.

51 Rothman K.J. Chou C.K. Morgan R. Balzano Q. Guy

A.W. Funch D.P. Preston-Martin S. Mandel J. Steffens R.

Carlo G. (1996) Assessment of cellular telephone and other

radio frequency exposure for epidemiologic research,

Epidemiology, 7(3), 291-298.

Documents

Invited paper Tony Atkins