Some useful tips to charge and preserve the Mobile Phone charge,
Charging a Cell Phone.
Increase Time between Charges
1
Turn the phone off. This will probably be the most effective and simple way of conserving your battery’s power. Why? This will help conserve energy and also charge your phone. If you don’t plan on answering the phone while you’re sleeping or after business hours, just turn it off. Do the same if you are in an area with no reception (such as a subway or remote area, since constantly searching for service depletes the battery fairly quickly.) Some phones have an automatic power save feature, but it takes about 30 minutes with no service to kick in. By then, much battery power has been used. If you don’t need to receive or make calls but are using a smartphone as a PDA, disable the phone functionality (flight mode).
Stop searching for a signal. When you are in an area with poor or no signal, your phone will constantly look for a better connection, and will use up all your power doing so. This is easily understood if you have ever forgotten to turn off your phone on a flight. The best way to ensure longer battery life is to make sure you have a great signal where you use your phone. If you don’t have a perfect signal, get a cell phone repeater which will amplify the signal to provide near perfect reception anywhere.
Follow the method of full charge and full discharge. Don’t put your phone on charging when there is the battery remaining it for another few hours unless it’s very important. Charge it when your battery is about to get totally discharged and when you put it for charging, let it get charged totally. OR Do the opposite – Some Articles [1] indicate that with Lithium batteries, doing shallow discharges and frequent charging prolongs battery life.
Switch the vibrate function off on your phone, using just the ring tone. The vibrate function uses additional battery power. Keep the ring tone volume as low as possible.
Turn off your phone’s back light. The back light is what makes the phone easier to read in bright light or outside. However, the light also uses battery power. If you can get by without it, your battery will last longer. If you have to use the back light, many phones will let you set the amount of time to leave the back light on. Shorten that amount of time. Usually, one or two seconds will be sufficient. Some phones have an ambient light sensor, which can turn off the back light in bright conditions and enable it in darker ones.
Avoid using unnecessary features. If you know it will be a while before your phone’s next charge, don’t use the camera or connect to the Internet. Flash photography can drain your battery especially quickly.
Keep calls short. This is obvious, but how many times have you heard someone on their mobile phone say, “I think my battery’s dying,” and then continue their conversation for several minutes? Sometimes, the dying battery is just an excuse to get off the phone (and a good one, at that), but if you really need to conserve the battery, limit your talk time.
Turn off Bluetooth. It will drain your battery very quickly.
Same goes for WIFI, GPS, and infrared capabilities, if your phone has these features built in. Keep them off except when you need them.
Turn the brightness of the display to the lowest setting possible.
Use GSM rather than 3G – Using your phone in 3G / Dual Mode will drain the battery quicker than if you just use GSM mode – have a look at your phones spec and you’ll see it will quote two different battery life times – normally 50% more for pure GSM use.
Take the phone out of the water as soon as possible. Ports for hands free kit, tiny hole for microphone, charging, usb cable connectivity and the plastic covers on cell phones even though tight can freely allow water to enter the phone in a just a few seconds of time. Grab your phone quickly, and turn it off immediately, as leaving it on can cause it to short circuit – if it has been in water, assume it is waterlogged whether it is still working or not.(wiki How)
The Government of India led by the vociferous Kapil Sibal, who seems to believe that higher decibel levels means the Truth and the assertion by others in the Comedy group led by Sonia Gandhi have stated that if the CAG’s report of the notional loss of Rs.1,76,000 lakh crore were true, where is it, as the recent auction of the 22 Licences of 2G brought only 9400 Crore?(‘
The auction for second-generation (2G) mobile phone licences raised 94bn rupees ($1.7bn; £1bn). The government had wanted closer to 400bn rupees.
Many companies had complained that prices were set too high. BBC)
Many seem to believe this non sense.
2GMobility and Bandwidth
Facts.
2G is an out dated Technology, where you can not transfer data like SMS and we now have 3G raging in the market.
The band now is 1800 Megahertz , while 900 Megahertz is not auctioned at all.
For non technical idiots like me, this means,the loin cloth that has been superseded by Sarong,is ignored and now the High end X front underwear has come into the market.
Why would some one buy a Loin Cloth?
Even then, the present auction fetched 9400 Crore for 22 Licences while Raja’s first come first served brought not even this much for 122 licences!
The Government knew that the technology is out dated so much that they did not auction 900 mega Hertz as they knew it would be a Dud.
Again to justify their stand that there was no loss, they have deliberately auctioned this now and the Corporate cooperated by forming a cartel to quote a lower price;even then greed out stripped manipulation and the present auction brought in 9400 Crore!
As poet Bharathi put it ‘பேய் அரசாண்டால் , பிணம் தின்னும் சாத்திரங்கள் ‘
If the Devil Rules, Righteous Laws shall eat Corpse,
‘2G (or 2-G) is short for second-generation wirelesstelephonetechnology. Second generation 2G cellular telecom networks were commercially launched on the GSM standard in Finland byRadiolinja (now part of Elisa Oyj) in 1991.[1] Three primary benefits of 2G networks over their predecessors were that phone conversations were digitally encrypted; 2G systems were significantly more efficient on the spectrum allowing for far greater mobile phone penetration levels; and 2G introduced data services for mobile, starting with SMS text messages.
After 2G was launched, the previous mobile telephone systems were retrospectively dubbed 1G. While radio signals on 1G networks are analog, radio signals on 2G networks are digital. Both systems use digital signaling to connect the radio towers (which listen to the handsets) to the rest of the telephone system.
2G has been superseded by newer technologies such as 2.5G, 2.75G, 3G, and 4G; however, 2G networks are still used in many parts of the world.’
.The Centre on Thursday justified in the Supreme Court non-auctioning of 900 MHz spectrum in 2G licences on November 12 along with 1800 and 800 MHz spectrum as it was not the subject matter of 122 licences which were cancelled pursuant to the February 2 judgment.
In an affidavit, the Telecom Secretary R. Chandrasekhar said “no spectrum in the 900 MHz band was put to auction pursuant to the judgment of this Court because no spectrum in the said band of 900 MHz was subject matter of the judgment dated February 2 and further, in any event, there is no available spectrum in this band of 900 MHz. The entire 25 MHz of spectrum in the 900 MHz band available for communication purposes is being fully utilized.”
The Centre gave a chart of licences with date of issue and period of expiry to drive home the point that at the time of expiry from 2014, the band 900 MHz would be available for fresh auction. It said “the spectrum that has been put to auction now is in terms of the final decision taken by the Central Government after duly considering the recommendations of TRAI, Redistribution of 900 MHz spectrum among all the GSM operators would mean fragmenting the spectrum below 5 MHz block. The 900MHz band is valuable from 3G point of view and utilising it for 2G purposes would mean uneconomic use of a valuable commodity.
The CBI will charge India’s top conglomerates the Essar Group and Relaince ADAG with criminal conspirary and cheating in the multi billion dollar 2G Telecom Licenses Scandal.This Corruption Scam was brought directly under the control of the Supreme Court as the government failed to move against powerful businessmen and politicians.Now the investigative agencies which have broken free from the ruling party’s interference have given the status of the investigation to the Court.The CBI has said that the 2 companies Loop and Swan Telecom were used as front companies by established telecom operators Essar and Reliance Communications to get more license.Note this defeated the entire exercise and there is ample circumstantial evidence to prove that the telecom minister Raja and his cronies connived with the companies to give precious spectrum for a song.Massive kickbacks were given through real estate companies like DB Realty whose top billionaire owners are cooling their heels in jail as well.
It remains to be seen whether the top corporate executives of India’s topmost conglomerates get prosecuted over these wrongdoings.Essar and ADAG are amongst the top 10 conglomerates in India with wide ranging operations with billions of dollars in revenues nationally as well as internationally.The Supreme Court has been instrumental in bringing this case so far as the government seems totally coopted by corruption.It has been frequently been castigated by the Supreme Court and has shamelessly defended corrupt bureaucrats and politicians.It remains to be seen how this 2G Telecom Case ends.If justice is done,then it may provide a new chapter to India’s corruption ridden story till now.
Sitaram’s letter had identified three elements in the telecom scam. One was of course giving away 122 licenses at 2001 prices in 2008. In 2001, there were barely 4 million mobile subscribers as against 300 million subscribers in 2008. With this expansion of the telecom market, using 2001 prices in 2008 was nothing but providing largesses to friends and relations. While the media focussed on this aspect of the scam, there were also two other components. One was the conversion of CDMA licenses to Unified Access Services (UAS), by virtue of which Reliance and Tata entered the GSM based mobile services. The third was the extra spectrum that the existing operators had hogged beyond their originally sanctioned amount. The table below summarises the amounts computed by the CPI(M) as in the letter to PM by Sitaram Yechury and the computations by CAG.
Item
Approx. Amount
CAG Calculations
Loss due to 122 licenses for new entrants in 2008
Rs. 124,000 crore
Rs. 102,498 crore
Loss due to cross-over licenses permitted to CDMA operators (Dual Technology License)
36,000 crore
Rs. 37,154 crore
Estimated loss due to excess spectrum occupied by the GSM operators beyond allotted 6.2 MHz
Rs. 30,000 crore
Rs 36,729 crore
Total
Rs.190,000 crore
Rs 1,76,379 crore
These figures are now longer conjectures of experts or figures computed by people who could be accused of being critical of the Government. These are figures worked out by a bunch of government auditors who had access to the files of the Department of Telecom and have come to their independent conclusions.
Who were the major beneficiaries of the scam? As the CAG Report makes clear, not only were the new licenses for 2G undervalued, but certain parties picked out for special favours. Swan and Unitech, the two real estate companies, were particular favourites. The second set of beneficiaries were the CDMA license holders — Reliance and Tata — who were given cross-over licenses for the bigger GSM market. The third were those GSM operators – Vodafone and Bharati in particular — who were holding spectrum well-beyond their original allotted spectrum.
The CAG report has also substantiated the charges made in the letter that Sitaram Yechury had written regarding violations of TRAI recommendations and disregarding the advise of other Ministries. The Report states, “The entire process of spectrum allocation was undertaken in an arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Prime Minister had stressed on the need for a fair and transparent allocation of spectrum, and the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Law and Justice had sought for the decision regarding spectrum pricing to be considered by an EGoM. Brushing aside these concerns and advices, the Department of Telecommunications, in 2008, proceeded to issue 122 new licences for 2G spectrum at 2001 prices, thus flouting all rules and procedures to be followed in a parliamentary democratic set up. The process followed for spectrum allocation was also unfair, considering the fact that DoT did not follow its own guidelines on eligibility conditions, arbitrarily changed the cut off date for receipt of applications post facto and altered the conditions of the FCFS (first-come first-served) procedure it had been following, gave unfair advantage of certain companies over others thus creating an environment which can not be perceived as transparent and fair.”
As the CAG Report makes clear, the manipulations to the stated first-come first-served policies were done to benefit certain parties. It again substantiates what Yechury had brought out in his May letter to the PM. The original first-come first-served had the application date as defining who are first-come. On Jan 10, 2010 this was changed to who fulfils LOI conditions first amongst the parties selected. CAG states, “Thus DoT deviated from its declared FCFS (first-cum-first-served) policy though MOCIT (Minister of Communications & IT) maintained that it was continuing ‘with the policy for processing of applications’
Where is the gentleman who lost his sleep because somebody told him a Minister demanded 15 Crores to enable him to set up Airlines Business?
As the CBI’s investigations into the Rs 1.76-lakh 2G spectrum scam progresses, a Lok Sabha MP from Andhra Pradesh has sent off a letter to the prime minister (a copy of which is with Outlook) levelling serious charges against the Tatas and Unitech.
It is believed that Unitech served as a front for the Tata group when they were “desperate” for a GSM license and spectrum. Ramesh Rathod, the Telugu Desam Party MP from Adilabad, points out in the January 11, 2011, letter that the Tata group “funded the entire amount of Rs 1,700 crore paid by the Unitech group for acquiring” 2G spectrum. He also alleges that the “deal was brokered by Niira Radia” who had both the “Tata group and Unitech group as her clients”. (The Radia tapes had given indications on this earlier—that she played a key role in some of the repayments from Unitech to Tata Realty.)
As proof of his allegations, Rathod has attached the annual report of Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd for the fiscal year 2007-08. He points out that it clearly records an MoU of Rs 1,700 crore with “a party”. The “party” mentioned, Rathod says, was none other than the Unitech group for the “proposed acquisition of land-owning companies”. Why did the annual report fail to mention who the “party” was and what were the exact nature of the land-owning companies they were planning to acquire? And most importantly, why did they infuse capital into Unitech just before the allocation of licences and 2G spectrum? Was it a mere coincidence?
Rathod also points out that the “back-to-back funding” from Tata Realty to Unitech went to the latter’s eight subsidiaries that were seeking spectrum allocation. For instance, Unitech Wireless (Delhi) received an unsecured loan of Rs 163.59 crore, which was, in actual terms, money from the Tatas. Similarly, seven other entities also received a proportionate share of the Rs 1,700-crore loan from the Tatas.
This, Rathod alleges, “clearly shows that the motive of the Tata group was never to acquire the land/land-owning companies”. The Tata group, he says, “in a clandestine manner, advanced a huge loan of Rs 1,700 crore to Unitech, flouting all rules, regulations and applicable laws”. Rathod has now asked the PM to investigate the matter and to ensure that “immediate penal and corrective steps are taken”.
The World Health Organization, based upon the majority view of scientific and medical communities, has stated that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects.[2][3] The WHO expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in 2010.[4] Some national radiation advisory authorities[5] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.
Effects
Many scientific studies have investigated possible health effects of mobile phone radiations. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. A recent assessment was published in 2007 by the European CommissionScientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).[6] 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.”
Calculated specific absorbed radiation (SAR) distribution in an anatomical model of head next to a 125 mW dipole antenna. Peak SAR is 9.5 W/kg averaged over a 1 mg cube. (USAF/AFRL).
Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted 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. Other digital mobile technologies, such as CDMA2000 and D-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt. 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. The rate at which radiation 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.[7]
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 2–3 hours duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits’ eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41°C. There were no cataracts detected in the eyes of monkeys exposed under similar conditions.[8] Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones
The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate.[9]
Some researchers have argued that so-called “non-thermal effects” could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example,[10] 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.[11]
Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Perrson, 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 blood-brain barrier.[12][13] This confirms earlier work on the blood-brain barrier by Allan Frey, Oscar and Hawkins, and Albert and Kerns.[14] Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cell [15] or animal studies.[16]
In 2006 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.[17] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) considers this report inconclusive.[18]
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 tumours.
The International Journal of Epidemiology published [19] a combined data analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
[dead link] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement
that:
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
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.
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.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile phones when responding to a questionnaire.[17][20]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that “the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma.”[21]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that “The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.”[22]
A German study (2006) that states “In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn.”[23]
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that “Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.”[24]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[25]
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[26]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:[27]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[28]
A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented what it termed “increasing body of evidence … for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours” and that it “is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking”.[29] This was criticised as ‘… an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’[30]
A publication titled “Public health implications of wireless technologies” cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[31] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.[32]
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. “The lack of a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk.”[33]
A 2009 study examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right side and sham-exposure. [34]
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling sensations in the skin of the head and extremities, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot separate the symptoms from nocebo effects. [35]
A large early 2009 meta-study of 101 scientific publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields shows that 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not.[36] Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[37] Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.[38] Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.[39] Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjecting in vitro samples of human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.[40]
In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.[41] Later, in December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[42] Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.[43]
Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,[44] most other papers have found significant effects on sleep.[45][46][47][48][49][50] Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants’ broken sleep) actually improved.
While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,[51][52] a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure.[53][54][55][56] German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 – 30%).[57]
NEW DELHI: Radiation from mobile phones and towers poses serious health risks, including loss of memory, lack of concentration, disturbance in the digestive system and sleep disturbances, according to an inter-ministerial committee formed by the ministry of communications and information technology to study the hazards posed by mobile phones.
The committee has also attributed the disappearance of butterflies, bees, insects and sparrows vanishing from big cities to mobile phone-related radiation.
The eight-member committee, which included representatives from the health ministry, department of biotechnology and member secretary, DoT, has recommended that mobile phones not adhering to standard levels of specific absorption rate (SAR) – a measure of the amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the body while using a phone — should be barred.
It has said mobile towers should not be installed near high density residential areas, schools, playgrounds and hospitals. “The localized SAR value as per the Indian guidelines standard is 2 watt per kg, averaged over a six minute period and using a 10 gram average mass. With higher SAR values of mobile handsets the public could potentially receive much higher radiofrequency exposure. We have recommended that SAR levels to be lowered down to 1.6 watt/kg, as prescribed by the Federal Communication Commission of US,” said a member.
Dr R S Sharma, ICMR scientist who represented the health ministry on the committee, said the findings are based on case studies presented by different experts. He added that the recommendations would be used to formulate a national policy and guidelines on electromagnetic frequency (EMF) radiation for telecom towers.
“In the case of a person using a cellphone, most of the heating occurs on the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. The brain blood flow is capable of disposing this excess by increasing the local blood flow and increasing body temperature,” states the report. It says that the non-thermal effects of cellphone use — attributed to the induced electromagnetic effects inside the body’s biological cells — are more harmful.
“People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions and users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific symptoms during and after its use, ranging from burning and tingling sensation in the skin of the head, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, lack of concentration, ringing in the ears, reaction time, loss of memory, headache, disturbance in digestive system and heart palpitation,” the report says.
The committee was chaired by Ram Kumar, advisor (technology), department of telecommunications, and had Arvind Duggal from the department of biotechnology and R N Jindal from the environment ministry among its other members.
Member scientist, ICMR R S Sharma said that compared to Europeans, Indian cellphone users are more at risk for adverse affect of radiation due the country’s hot tropical climate, low body mass index, and low fat content. “We have recommended amendment in the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and rules so that only mobile handsets satisfying radiation standards should be permitted in the country,” he said.
The report suggests that children, adolescents and pregnant women should avoid excessive use of cellphones. People in general should use hands-free technologies to minimize the contact of the head with cell phone. “People having active medical implants should keep their cellphone at least 30 cm away from the implant,” it adds.
Said Girish Kumar, professor in the department of electrical engineering at IIT Bombay, whose research on hazards of cellphone use was taken as a reference for the committee decision, “There is a 400% increase in the risk of brain cancer among teenagers using cell phones for long periods. The younger the child, the deeper is the penetration of electromagnetic radiation as children`s skulls are thinner.
Another government-funded study on radiation from mobile phones and towers at the Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU) found that the exposure to radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones could have an adverse impact on male fertility and pose health hazards by depleting the defence mechanism of cells.
2GMobility and Bandwidth
You must be logged in to post a comment.