Cell Phones – Some Considerations of the Cell Phone of the Future

Cell phone technology has been moving forward at break neck speed, and sometimes we may not notice it, but think back to just a few years ago and you can see all the new feature integration and race in the marketplace – a race to “wow” consumers and get them to choose a specific device. But before we talk about the current trends in cell phones and smart phones, let’s discuss the past evolution of these devices.

Since, I had one of the first mobile “cell” phones – I’d like to tell you a quick story to start out this discussion.

My first cell phones were state-of-the-art at the time, but if you saw them today, you’d laugh. One of them I actually kept; a Mitsubishi Transportable. This phone is about the size of a six pack cooler that you might take to your child’s soccer game, and it was quite heavy, as I recall it is well over 10 pounds. This of course included the battery pack to power up to 3 Watt phone.

Remember that Ion-lithium batteries at the time were just coming off the assembly lines and were quite expensive – they did not exist in this size for anything but NASA and military usage. These original cell phones I had were nickel hydride powered, quite an inferior battery technology for modern cell phones.

The Mitsubishi Cell Phone has a strap on it so you can carry it like a purse, and I often felt really stupid carrying it, until of course it rang, and I unzipped the top, pulled out the handset on the phone and began talking. I can recall that everyone stared as if I was a secret CIA agent, was working for MI6, and my name wasn’t Lance, it was really James Bond. You see, at that time not very many people had the cell phones and they were very expensive.

Another one of my first phones was a Audiovox 1000 model, which was quite large and it was mounted in my car, a car phone – cell phone. The box that ran the Cell Phone was mounted under the seat, and there was a cradle that held the headset. The headset had a cord on it just like a phone at home, before the cordless phones that is. Under the seat the box was about 3 1/2 inches high and the size of a laptop with a 17.1 inch screen.

This Cell Phone or car cell phone was wired directly to the battery with a couple of fuses. When I turned on the vehicle, the Cell Phone would automatically turn on. If I turned off the vehicle, I had to leave it on accessory with the key in the right position, unless I left the phone on which by-passed the ignition. When the phone rang and actually honked the horn, which got me into trouble a couple of times when the horn went off while I was driving behind a police car stopped at an intersection. I have a lot of stories to tell you about all those early days with the first cell phones, and you may e-mail me if you are ever interested in such experiences.

Folks today take all this for granted, as they don’t realize how cumbersome the original cell phones were, or how stupid they were compared to modern day smart cell phones. Today they give you a free cell phone when you sign up for service – back then you had to pay $1000 for a car cell phone, and as much as a couple hundred dollars to have it installed. It was quite a procedure, if you have a stereo system, and an XM radio put in your car at the same time, that is about how much work it took to do this. Therefore, at today’s labor rates you could easily pay three or $400. That’s definitely something to think about.

If I was talking to someone on the phone while the engine was running, if I turned off the car and moved the key to the accessory position I would dump the phone call, as I cut it out during that transition. However, having a cell phone in my car helped me increase my business. At the time I was only 17 years old – I had an aircraft brokerage firm and aircraft finder’s service and I would work off of fees whenever an aircraft that I represented sold. I also had a small aircraft cleaning service and was able to contact customers from my vehicle on the flight line, and my crews could call me when they were done with the job as they would use the local payphone to call me.

Thus, this mobile technology allowed me to make more money, and remain more efficient than the competition. Remember at the time this was leading edge technology, it was state-of-the-art, and I had it – the competition did not. No longer was I stuck in an office, I could run my business from anywhere and it allowed me much freedom. Often people today do not realize what it was like before mobile cell phones. Anyone who is in business now over the age of 50 certainly realizes, because they remember a time when there were no cell phones.

This was a period in our nation’s history where there were pay phones in every shopping center, every gas station, outside of every fast food restaurant, and people used them all the time. Business People who didn’t smoke filled their ashtrays with coins so they can stop and use the pay phone. Thus, allowing them to call clients, customers, vendors, and maintain their operations in the office. When cell phones first came into play they displaced the old Motorola technology of push to talk phones, which worked off a mountaintop repeaters, these phones were very big in the military, construction industry, and all the executives with large corporations had them.

Since this was radio technology, they worked farther than the first cell phones which had to be within 10 to 15 miles of a cell tower. Today, the cell phones are less wattage than they were back then, so the average cell tower is 6 miles or less apart. Back then the cell phones worked off three Watts, and now with 3G technology the wattage is under 1 W. This is probably good for the human biosystem, as it is putting less microwave frequency radiation into your brain, there will be fewer brain tumors, brain cancer, and other issues. There have been many studies including several with the Swiss researchers which seemed to indicate that the 3 W phones were quite unacceptable for human health, and they would slowly cook your brain as one researcher said.

Luckily, for the cell phone industry they were able to bury most of these problems and objections, as well as the studies that the Swiss did. Although, there were studies here in the United States, you would be hard-pressed to find those research studies and data on brain tumors, brain cancer, and their relation to the cell phones that people used. In fact, if you go to Google Scholar today you will be hard-pressed to find anything that would suggest that the cell phones could cause such horrible conditions. This of course is all still up for debate, but we try not to talk about it.

Perhaps, by going to 3G wireless, and lower wattage the mobile cell phone industry dodged a bullet of huge class-action lawsuits, and we may never know the damage we had caused. Nevertheless, as we talk about Six Sigma efficiency in corporations, or using modern management techniques in small businesses, no one can deny that increasing communication speed and reliability is by far a factor in the increase productivity in the 80s and 90s due to cell phones.

At the time I was literally running 1000 to 1200 minutes per month and although that service was much cheaper than the other choices such as the Iridium Satellite Phones, non-cell phone mobile units, as they did not use cell towers, rather satellites – you can imagine the costs of the original cells. They did not have an unlimited plan and once over your minutes, you paid the premium for each minute on that cell phone, my bill was usually $500 to 800 or more.

The other mobile phones at the time were not cell tower-based phones, they were push-to-talk and came in a brief case – it was considered quite James Bond at the time. And this was back in the 1970s, and I remember this, because I started my business when I was 12 years old washing airplanes at the local airport. Many of the businessmen who owned corporate jets had these types of phones. They were basically for the rich and famous, and business person. They didn’t work everywhere and you had to have pretty much line of sight to the nearest tall mountain, and that mountain had to have a repeater on top of it, which was hardwired into telephone lines, and the rest of the system worked with ground lines.

All this is very interesting, and we must consider that many folks today have never been alive when there were no cell phones. They have no clue how hard it was to run a business back in the days when there really was no mobile communication. The same repeater systems on top of the mountains that Motorola owned or which used Motorola hardware, also controlled the pagers. These pager systems were quite popular with people on call, such as doctors, and service personnel. Two-way radios, which work basically the same as the two-way push to talk briefcase phones, were used through a dispatcher for companies very often.

Later, just as cell phones came into play, someone came up with the idea of 1.5 way and two-way pagers. Instead of a one-way pager, someone who had what they call an “alpha mate” device could page someone and ask them a question (using a text message) on that page and the recipient could press a button for yes or no, Y. or N. and that information would be relayed to the dispatcher. People actually got pretty good at communicating this way. And you could send text type messages for the user of the pager to read. In reality these were the first text type messages, so the concept of having a mobile device and using text messaging is not all that new.

Two-way text messaging via cell phones is merely a re-introduction of that similar technology. Once people had cell phones they didn’t need to use the text pagers anymore, and that technology was leapfrogged as the price of the cell phone services was lower, as competition increased between companies like Sprint and AT&T. There were many other regional smaller players, but they eventually got bought up by the big boys.

The cell phone industry grew so fast in the late 80s and early 90s, that eventually there was coverage everywhere. Then something really weird happened, the promise of 3G wireless came into play, and folks started switching to that new system. I can tell you this – my first cell phones were much more powerful and worked much better than the cell phones of today.

Occasionally, I had a call dropped and there were not as many service areas, yes there were more dead zones, but the signal was much more powerful because it was 3 W, and since it ran off my car battery or a large battery pack in a small carry case, it had ample power to maintain that strong signal.

Today, when I use my AT&T cell phone, I am often cursing because the service is so bad, I wonder why I am even paying for it. In fact, the loss of productivity from dead zones, and the cell phone calls dropping, I feel as if AT&T should be paying me. Apparently, I am not alone many people feel the same way. Nevertheless, the 4G wireless is on the way and everyone will be switching to that so that they will have Internet access allowing them to do e-mails, twitter, video, and real-time text messaging without the use of ground lines

A good many folks do not know of a time when there was no email or internet. And most people who are in business today, who are under 50 years old do not remember a time when we didn’t have fax machines, the reality is that fax machines came into play about the time of the first cell phones. Mind you, there was still no Internet, no e-mail, and although ARPANET was being used by the military, and by think tanks, research centers, and top universities, it wasn’t really available to the public in the way we have it now.

Fast forward to today and now no one goes anywhere without a cell phone. Social researchers have noted fewer people wearing wrist watches. They don’t need a wristwatch because that is a standard feature on all cell phones now. Of course, this doesn’t help companies like Rolex who are catering to the young up-and-coming BMW crowd, if you look around you will see that most young executives don’t even wear a watch and most of our younger generation doesn’t wear a watch either.

It seems that the wrist-watch replaced the pocket watch, and the cell phones seem to be replacing just about everything. These days people use their cell phone or smart phones to do their e-mails, and these same phones act like a PDA, no one carries day planners anymore, although a few people do, myself included perhaps out of habit from using a day planner from the time I was 12 years old in my business until I was in my mid-40s. Perhaps, I am giving away my age, but sometimes old habits die hard.

Today with many laptop notebooks, PDAs, and smart phones, it seems none of that other stuff is needed. Including your human memory say many psychologists, who argue that this technology is causing the human brain to rewire itself differently because there are different needs to get along in the world. After all, all your best friends are on the speed dial and you don’t have to remember phone numbers anymore. And all your contacts and information is on your smart phone, in your e-mail program, or on your laptop.

Cyber security analysts worry that if the system crashes or God forbid an electro-magnetic pulse, neutron bomb, or nuclear device is set off high in the atmosphere it could destroy all the electronic equipment, including all the cell towers, your laptop, your television, your refrigerator, and your smart phone. Where will you be then, and can you rely on your memory and the brain you are born with to carry on your daily endeavors – scary thinking, but perhaps we need to address this as we consider the evolution of cell phones.

Today, our cell phones have changed the entire dynamics of our society. There are unspoken etiquette issues of cell phone use in public. There are rules when we can use our cell phones and when we can’t. Issues such as driving with a cell phone and the number of auto deaths which occur while people are driving and talking on the phone at the same time. There have been major disasters caused by texting while driving a bus or conducting a train.

The reality is that as our technology has evolved, it is evolving much faster than the human brain can to take it all in. Due to the multitasking required in our society to get along and the high pace and productivity that jobs require, many brains cannot cope or adapt fast enough. And this seems to be a problem, if some people are not able to make the switch, but they attempt to, sometimes while driving with disastrous results.

Our smart phones are becoming super cell phones that have more and more features, such as the ability to store music like the iPod, and vast amounts of data like our electronic PDAs. These devices are getting more high-tech each and every year and they are feature rich. Many have five to ten gigabytes of information storage now. One recent study in the cell phone industry noted that 90% of the people who own cell phones have never used all the features, and do not know how to program them, or even that they exist on their cell phone. Most people don’t even care, they use the features they want and none of the others.

This is a common problem with new technologies, and it is something that happened with that Beta and VHS recorders. What’s that old joke, there are tons of features on your video recorder at home, but no one knows how to use them, and before we all learned that we need to learn to use these features, the VHS video recorder is out in the new DVDs are here. Now cable companies offer boxes which can record multiple shows so you can watch later or pause a live TV program while you go to the bathroom, or go to the kitchen to get something to eat. Some allow you to use your cell phone to do remote programming too.

These are all things common challenges which are encountered and similar problems with any new personal tech devices which become mass consumer products. Cell phones and our current smart phones are no exception. It’s hard to say the future what types of new features in our cell phones will have. The sky is the limit, and the imagination and demand for more features and greater technology is readily apparent. The early adopters of such cell phone and smart phone technologies are willing to spend big bucks to have all-in-one devices. Therefore, these trends will continue.

Just to give you an example of some of the crazy ideas people come up with for future smart phones let me tell you a little quick story.

Our on-line Think Tank came up with a plan to produce a PhD or Personal Health Device, which tracks your diet – on your cell phone. How it worked was quite simple, when you are at the grocery store, you would scan all the items that you bought, and they would go into storage inside your smart phone. Each time you ate one of those items you would simply select what you ate, and punch in the number of servings and you would calculate and keep track of your calories, fat content, and recommended daily allowances in the major five food groups.

The smart phone would have a scanner system on it, later subsequent versions of this smart phone and personal health device would be able to scan products via RFID tags. Your phone could tabulate and even recommend what you should eat, how many more miles you should jog, and what you would need to maintain your diet to meet your personal health goals, and weight loss program. Sounds crazy doesn’t it, yes, it does, but the venture capitalists like the idea. So too, do companies that produce high tech smart phones today, as everyone is looking to get a jump on the competition.

GPS systems by way of smart phones or cellular high-tech phones is quite possible (now available), and you don’t even need satellites to do it. If you are within the realm of several cell towers your location can be triangulated quite quickly, which pinpoints your exact location within 10 feet. Ah ha, you see the problem in this too; What about privacy you ask? That’s a good point and that is another issue that people are quite concerned about with all this new high-tech personal smart phone innovations.

Google Phone and social networking connections appear to be on horizon. That is to say, linking your smart phone with all of your social networking friends, but apparently Google got into a little bit of a problem and noted that many people are not ready for that just yet. In fact, many people who are friends on social networks and make connections, have no intention of ever meeting these people in real life, and therefore they aren’t really friends. And since you don’t really know anything about those connections or friends on your social networking site, the last thing you want them to do is know exactly where you are within 10 feet.

That should appear to be obvious, and in the future it may not be such a big deal, but people are still a little paranoid and they like to have their privacy. Meanwhile, we read more and more articles about social networking gone bad. That is to say people using social networks to stalk other people, and this also concerns parents who have teenagers, who use social networks on a daily basis, and some that use them on an hourly basis, and a good many who seem to be texting every few minutes.

One recent study of cell phone users was able to have a 93% predictability of where a person might be based on the patterns determined by their cell phone, and when it was connected to any given local cell tower. The study found that most people stay within 6 miles of their homes. These patterns of predictability are a reality in our society and how we operate as individuals – nevertheless this brings up all types of issues that have attracted the attention of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and it also touches on the issue of privacy and paranoia, it catches people off guard.

Then there is the new trend with smart mobs using their smart phones, and having fun with and meeting up in various places all at the same time. Although these schemes are used for fun, entertainment, and socializing, these same types of smart mobs have the power to destabilize a society or civilization. Consider if you will the use of technology in Tiananmen Square – should governments be worried about your smart phone technology, or the future of 4G wireless cell phones? They probably should be concerned with it, especially if it is used by a foreign government to provide mass protests against what would be a normal stabile government.

In other words it has uses in warfare, the CIA, in bringing down corrupt regimes which are enemies to United States. But rest assured – the same thing could happen in the United States where perhaps a communist rogue nation state decided to have protests in the United States in our major cities on Mayday. It could easily happen especially with our own technology being used against us, due to all the interconnectivity that it offers.

  1. Does this mean that our government has to find a way to turn off all the cell phones in case of something like this happening?
  2. Do they need a device to turn off certain cell phones from the system, while leaving first responders cell phones activated for communication?
  3. And what about hackers, which might be able to send out tens of thousands of bogus text messages, or call masses of people into a trap, or stage a riot?

These are all questions we need to answer and we need to understand that the same technology we create to improve our productivity, our society, and help us in our daily lives with our families and friends can also be used against us.

And what happens when our smart phones become smarter than us? Some believe, as I do, that they already have. Most of the smart phones today have artificial intelligence systems within them, for instance a text messaging program which guesstimates which keys you are going to press next or what you are trying to say and it offers you suggest is so you can fill in the blank. Making your texting very quick. This is very similar technology that Google uses when doing a search and offer suggestions as you are typing to save you time. This is just one form of artificial intelligence in our smart phones and cell phones today.

There are many cell phones that allow you to use speech recognition to dial phone numbers, search your databases, or navigate the screens on your cell phone. The newest smart phones will be able to tell you when you are in proximity to a Starbucks and then give you GPS directions to find that location. This has big implications for retailers, advertisers, and consumers alike. They will begin to know your patterns and habits. All these technologies are available now and we will see them in the near future. Your cell phone will even become a payment device, hooked to your credit card information. All this technology exists today.

But what about the technologies which are just over the horizon?

We’ve recently seen at Comdex and CES shows the first generations of projection cell phones, that is to say video conference enabled cell phones which allow you to project to the other party onto the nearest wall or onto a table so you can watch. This will obviously be followed by the Holographic cell phones, which were similar to those that we saw in the Star Wars trilogy.

All these things will be available in the next five years, and you will most likely have them if you buy one of the high-tech cell phones in the near future. At first these technologies will cost a lot extra, but those prices will come down as the number of units built goes up and as more Chinese also purchase their first cell phone, adding another billion people who own such devices, therefore bringing the cost down for everyone – significantly!

By the year 2025 your cell phone will be a brain chip inside of your head, and you can think that you’d like to contact someone and it will dial the number and contact them. By 2050 you will be able to do thought transfer via the small devices, brain implant – perhaps smaller than a dime. And people born after that will never know what time were “thought transfer” did not exist, just like right now there are many people who have never known a time when mobile phones didn’t exist. And since Moore’s law also seems to apply to the cell phone and smart phone industries we can expect a size reduction as well as a power reduction to run this technology.

In other words, your biosystem will be able to power up your brain cell phone chip, just as it does your current human brain which works on about a maximum of 20 W. of energy, and you will be able to have an eyelid screen, so you can close one eye, and surf the Internet. It’s hard to say what the Comdex and CES Show in Las Vegas in the year 2025 will look like, it is probably impossible to pinpoint what these shows will look like in the year 2050. In fact, there may not be shows at all, you may be able to experience these trade shows in your holographic living room, video gaming center.

Walking the virtual halls of the trade show using your avatar and talking to other avatars explaining all the new technologies that are available for you might be the new reality albeit an Augmented or fully Virtual Reality. That appears to be where we are going, although it’s hard to imagine considering where we are today. Nevertheless, I can assure you people in the 1950s could not really have imagined the way in which our smart cell phones have evolved in the present period.

Currently, there seems to be a very big push in the larger cities like Atlanta and Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle, Boston and New York, Miami and Houston towards the 4G wireless, obviously this will continue. That is the full broadband Internet surfing on your smart phone, the ability to watch TV while driving in a car on your cell phone. And next comes the ability to project that TV onto any screen or flat surface that is nearby or available. The technology is getting more robust, it’s getting smaller, it’s getting smarter, and you have to decide how far you want to go with it.

Perhaps, I should write a quick eBook on this topic and explain chapter by chapter, the evolution of this ominous communication technology, and the future of smart phone personal tech devices. Let me know if you know any interested potential co-authors.

At the current pace we are moving, and at the speed in which we are interfacing with the Internet, social networks, e-mail, and television, it’s hard to say exactly what you will be carrying around in the future in your purse or pocket, but I daresay it will be something that is truly incredible, and in the next 10 years it will be hardly imaginable from this point in time to know exactly what it will be, or what it might be able to do. I hope you will please consider all this. And contact me if you’d like to discuss this further at the Online Think Tank.

Are Cell Phones Causing Cancer?

In 1993, a man filed a lawsuit against the cell phone industry, claiming that his wife died from a brain tumor caused by her repeated use of the cell phone. The tumor was on the same side of the head where she held her cell phone and was shaped like the cell phone antenna. The case got widespread media attention and was featured in CNN’s Larry King show.

Although the claim was dismissed by the court due to lack of sufficient evidence, it was a public relations nightmare for the wireless industry. It also marked the beginning of the global search for a definitive answer to the question: are cell phones safe or not? Does it cause cancer and other degenerative diseases? Brain cancer is up 25% since cell phones became popular. Every year, there are 183,000 more cases in the US alone. Some health experts say there’s a link with cell phone use, but is there proof?

In an effort to diffuse the negative publicity from the high-profile lawsuit, the cell phone industry itself funded a $25 million dollar research program to prove that cell phones are safe. After 6 years of intensive research, however, the results were not what they were looking for. Dr. George Carlo, the chief research scientist of the program, found evidence that cell phones pose some health risks, possibly even cancer.

The first evidence of cancer link that shook the cell phone industry came in 1997. Dr. Michael Repacholi and his colleagues from the Royal Adelaide Hospital in South Australia reported that long-term exposure to the type of radiation that comes from digital cell phones caused an increase in the occurrence of lymphoma in mice. The study received widespread international media attention because it was the first time that cancer has been linked to the cell phone in a well-conducted study.

THE RED FLAGS: SOLVING THE CANCER PUZZLE
In order to show a link between cell phone radiation and cancer, let’s look at several studies Dr. Carlo investigated that made him blow the whistle, so to speak. These red-flag findings provide the pieces that fit together to form the cancer picture:

– DNA Damage in Human Blood Studies
– Breakdown in the Blood-Brain Barrier
– Studies of Tumors in People Who Use Cell Phones
– Studies of Cell Phone Radiation Dosage and Response

DNA DAMAGE IN HUMAN BLOOD
All tumors and all cancers are the result of genetic damage. Most often that damage includes the formation of micronuclei–fragments of chromosomes that form membranes around themselves and appear under a microscope as additional nuclei in blood cells (which normally have just a single nucleus). The relationship between micronuclei and cancer is so strong that doctors around the world test for their presence to identify patients likely to develop cancer. The presence of micronuclei indicates that the cells can no longer properly repair broken DNA. This deficiency is considered to be an indication of an increased risk of developing cancer.

– In December 1998, Drs. Ray Tice and Graham Hook of Integrated Laboratory Systems in North Carolina have shown that blood cells exposed to cell phone radiation suffer genetic damage in the form of micronuclei. In their studies, DNA and chromosome damage in human white blood cells occurred when exposed to signals from all types of phones–analog, digital, and PCS. Damage was shown even from signals occurring at a SAR level below the government’s “safety” guideline.

– Using different methods, the above finding was confirmed by Dr. Joseph Roti Roti of Washington University in St. Louis in 2000. His research showed that human blood cells exposed to radiation at wireless phone frequencies did indeed develop genetic damage, in the form of micronuclei. This finding received a lot of notice because Dr. Roti Roti is a prominent scientist who does hiw work under funding by Motorola Inc.

This has a very serious implication. If cell phone radiation encourages the formation of micronuclei in blood cells, and micronuclei are said to be “biological markers” for cancer, then based on these studies alone cell phone use could be said to increase the risk of cancer

BREAKDOWN IN THE BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER
The blood brain barrier is a special filter in the blood vessels of the brain that keeps dangerous chemicals from reaching sensitive brain tissue and causing DNA breaks and other damage.

– In 1994 and again, in 2002, Dr. Leif Salford from Lund University in Stockholm, Sweden found in his studies that rats exposed to cell phone radiation showed a breakdown in the blood brain barrier, as well as areas of shrunken, damaged neurons.

The micronuclei studies of Tice, Hook and Roti Roti and the blood-brain findings of Salford provide a two-step explanation for how cancer could be caused by cell phone radiation.

Step One: A leakage or breakdown in the blood brain barrier would provide a pathway for cancer-causing chemicals in the bloodstream (from tobacco, pesticides, air pollution, etc.) to leak into the brain and damage sensitive brain tissue that would otherwise be protected. These chemicals could break the DNA in the brain or cause other harm to reach those cells.

Step Two: While a number of studies showed that cell phone radiation by itself does not appear to break DNA, the micronuclei findings suggest that they do impair the DNA repair mechanisms in brain cells. Micronuclei result from a breakdown of the cell’s ability to repair itself. If the brain cells become unable to repair themselves, then carcinogenesis–the creation of tumors–induced by chemical toxins could begin.

DNA carries the genetic material of an organism and its different cells. Any damage that goes unrepaired affects the future generation of cells. The change has procreated and this mutation is seen as a possible cause of cancer.

TUMORS IN PEOPLE WHO USE CELL PHONES
Epidemiological studies, performed by different investigators using different methods, show some evidence of an increased risk of tumors among people who use cellular phones.

– In 1998, Dr. Ken Rothman of Eidemiology Resources, Inc. in Newton, Mass., did a study showing that users of handheld cell phones have more than twice the risk of dying from brain cancer than do car phone users–whose antennas are mounted on the body of the car, far removed from the users’ heads.

– In 1998, Joshua Muscat, a research scientist from the American Health Foundation, showed in his study a doubling of the risk of developing neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain among cell phone users, particularly on the side of the skull where cell phone antennas are held during calls.

– Muscat also showed in another study that people who have used cell phones for six years or more have a 50-percent increase in risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the nerve that controls hearing and extends from the ear to the brain. Acoustic neuromas can cause hearing loss and can be life-threatening if untreated.

This was confirmed in a separate study in Stockholm, Sweden by Anders Ahlbom in 2004 and sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), which finds that people who have used cell phones, this time for at least 10 years, may have an increased risk of developing acoustic neuroma.

– In a study also requested by WHO, researchers headed by Dr. Lennart Hardell of the Orebro Medical Center in Sweden examined 1,617 patients aged between 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a brain tumour between 1997 and 2000. They were then compared to healthy people. Those who used cell phones for less than 10 years faced a 20% higher risk of developing brain cancer. But for those who used them for more than a decade the risk was 80% higher. The study also found that tumours were 2.5 times more likely to be on the same side of the head as the phone was held. The cancer of the auditory nerve, acoustic neuroma, showed a larger increase–3.5 times greater risk.

CELL PHONE RADIATION DOSAGE AND RESPONSE
All studies mentioned showed that an increase in cell phone radiation exposure also increases the likelihood of the adverse effect occurring.

In Repacholi’s study of mice, the risk of lymphoma increased significantly the longer the mice were exposed to the radio waves.

In the research work done by Tice, Hook, and Roti Roti, the risks of genetic damage as measured by micronuclei formation increased as the amount of radiation increased.

In the three epidemoiological studies–two by Muscat and one by Hardell–the risk of tumors was greater in the areas of the brain near where the cell phone was held.

In Salford’s study, the higher the radiation exposure level the rats were exposed to, the more damage was apparent in the blood vessels in the brain and the neurons.

THE BIG CANCER PICTURE
The test tube studies by Tice and Hook; the mouse study by Repacholoi and Selford; and the epidemiological studies by Rothman, Muscat, and Hardell all agree in that they suggest an increased risk of cancer among cell phone users. They fit together to form the beginnings of a picture that everyone can see. They perhaps don’t form the complete picture yet, but there are enough already in place to see that there is cause fo genuine public health concern about cell phone safety.

According to Dr. Carlo, “The big picture is disturbingly clear. There is a definite risk that the radiation plume that emanates from a cell phone antenna can cause cancer and other health problems. It is a risk that affects hundreds of millions of people around the world. It is a risk that must be seen and understood by all who use cell phones so they can take all the appropriate and available steps to protect themselves–and especially to protect young children whose skulls are still growing and who are the most vulnerable to the risks of radiation.”

MORE PIECES COMING
– In 2000, a team of Sydney researchers published a scientific hypothesis about how mobile phone radiation causes cancer. The report claims that the radiation generated by cell phones causes ongoing stress to the body cells, causing them to give off ‘heat shock proteins (HSP).’ The human cells sometimes release these proteins in response to injury or infection. Such a chronic activation of the heat shock response affects the normal regulation of cells, which could result in cancer.

– In 2002, cell biologist Fiorenzo Marinelli and his team at the National Research Council in Bologna, Italy, exposed leukemia cells to continuous radio waves similar to that of cell phones. The exposed cells had a higher rate of death than the controls initially, but after further exposure, a curious thing happened: instead of more cells dying, the exposed cells were replicating furiously compared to the controls. Genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in a high proportion of the cells. The cancer, although briefly beaten back, had become more aggressive. Marinelli suspects that the radiation may initially damage DNA, and that this interferes with the biochemical signals in a way that ultimately triggers the cells to multiply more rapidly.

SO WHY ARE CELL PHONES STILL AROUND?
Now with all the mounting evidence, the cell phone industry still maintains their position that cell phones are safe and have even begun marketing towards children. The governments have been slow in stepping in to warn people of any danger from using cell phones. Fortunately, health officials and experts in several European countries are taking the first steps, having issued public warnings to parents urging caution about kids and cell phones,

If the previous environmental issues involving tobacco, asbestos, and lead are any indication, it takes years and even decades to accumulate the amount of evidence that would produce a definite ruling. In the case of cigarette smoking, it took two decades of study and 100 years of consumer use to gather enough data to meet research standards to demonstrate the need for the U.S. Surgeon General’s warning label on cigarette packs. Some experts say that in the case of cell phones, it will not take that long as data are coming in at a faster pace. But at the present the authorities can only urge people to exercise caution.

Replication of research is another problem. A study that comes out with a new finding generally does not gain immediate acceptance in the scientific community or the wireless industry unless another research lab has been able to replicate the work and the findings. The industry has cleverly perpetuated their position by creating an illusion of responsible follow up by always calling for more research.

When Dr. Salford published his study in 2003 showing that rat brain neurons were dying from exposure to cellphone radiation, he warned there might be similar effects in humans that over time could lead to degenerative diseases of the brain. His study was written off by the industry as a “novel” finding that needed to be replicated.

But achieving the scientific standard of replication can be complicated. Salford says if studies aren’t absolutely replicated, providing an apples-to-apples comparison, there’s wiggle room to dispute follow-up findings. Research studies require funding, and the wireless industry, after Dr. Carlo’s revelations, have been reluctant to put money into more comprehensive research. As for governments, again many European governments are taking the responsible course by funding research, but the U.S. and Canada are lagging poorly.

In 1999, CNN’s Larry King once again featured a man who brought a multimillion dollar lawsuit against cell phone manufacturers. This time the man, a Maryland neurologist, was himself diagnosed with brain cancer–again located on the side of the head where he held his cell phone. The suit was yet again dismissed, however, and the man died not long afterwards.

According to WHO report, 0.1 billion people have died from tobacco use in the 20th century, and 10 times as many will die in the 21st century. No one is suggesting that cell phones could cause as much casualties, but do we really want to wait and find out?

AIMING FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
Unlike tobacco, the cell phone has become as an indispensable part of our lives as television and computer. It has enabled us to make a gigantic leap in the way we communicate with one another and has been credited widely with saving people’s lives in emergency situations. Cell phones are here to stay, and perhaps rightly so.

The question is not how to stop people from using this ubiquitous device but rather how to make it safer. The first step always is to admit there is a problem, hence the industry and the government have to acknowledge the health risks inherent with the present technology. This way we can all find the proper solutions that we may more enjoy the benefits of its use without sacrificing our health and wellbeing.

copyright 2005 Taraka Serrano

Cell Phone Radiation: The REAL Issue and How to Reduce Radiation Levels Coming From Your Cell Phone

Recently, the WHO, the World Health Organization came out with a statement that Cell Phones may be hazardous to your health. They made this conclusion after they had a conference in which world scientists, doctors etc., examined the data from one study done in Sweden and concluded that despite all of the other years where they could not make a determination, this year they could.

Was this politically motivated, where the WHO, the organization that created the scare of h1n1 virus, SARs, and Mad Cow, actually needed some more limelight to become relevant or is this real possibility, that is, Cell Phones used for long periods of time can cause tumors in the brain?

In looking at the study, several key facts come out of it. Some of them are based on their assumptions and some as well that are based on logic.

Where is that danged antenna located?

A short time ago, cell phones had a small telescopic antenna that you could raise or lower. This migrated to small stub fixed antennas located at the top of your cell phone, and then off to what is now used predominantly which is a “Patch” antenna, a small wafer about 1″ x 1/2 ” in size placed behind the back cover of your phone ( not the batter cover). These patch antennas work almost as well as the telescopic ones, but inherently are not as efficient. This means that “Not all cell phones are created equal“. That is to say different cell phones produce different power levels.

More importantly there are cell phone that have their antenna located behind the ear piece of the cell phone, and others that are located behind the microphone, or mouth piece. There was no distinction made between these two cases. There should be. Close proximity to the area behind the ear and above, energy transmitted by the cell phone has a higher intensity than that transmitted by the antenna behind the mouth piece. For the signal to travel into the brain area, the signal must pass through the jawbone, the moisture of the mouth, and on to the brain. The energy of the cell phone at 5″ from the antenna we can be measured with the spectrum analyzers we have and it was 10 dB or ten times less than that of the energy directly at the ear.

iPhones for example have the antenna located surrounding the cell phone from the right side over the top to the left side. The energy is distributed among a path of approximately 6″. No study was done to determine whether the distribution of the energy over the 6″ was different than coming from a patch antenna 1″ x ” in size. Blackberry and most Androids have the antenna located in the bottom of the phone at the back. Again, the signal would have to travel through the phone and then through the jawbone. Similar with Motorola razors, the flip phones where the antenna is located near the mouth piece.

Certainly not all cell phones are created equal.

Cell Phone Output Power Levels

What was the energy level of the cell phone to start off with? That is an important point. If this was a European study, a cell phone can put out a maximum power of 2 watts. Here in the United States, in order to conserve energy, and “talk time” cell phones are designed to operate at lower levels, close to 1 mill watt in most cases. US cell phones have a maximum energy level of of a watt… 25% that of the European maximums. This was not taken into consideration.

What Standard Protocol did they test?

CDMA GSM or iDen? The three standards used in the United States, are infinitely different. CDMA phones normally operate at even lower powers levels than their GSM counterparts. The equipment of the CDMA in the USA is the UMTS in Europe or WCDMA. GSM operates channelized m and CDMA is spread over a greater area. Iden phones, famous for push to talk operate at much higher levels than the other two systems, because their towers are father apart forcing the phone to operate at higher levels. Up to 2 watts in some cases!

Other considerations.

Did they take into consideration other factors, like total amount of metal in the particular cell iPhone versus plastic? Several Nokia, Samsung and Sanyo phones have very little metal, but put out the same power as the Motorola counterparts. This is all very important in looking at the study.

Using Headsets versus the phone up against you ear.

Most news organizations are coming out indicting that the use of a Bluetooth headset is advisable compared to directly putting your cell phone up against your ear. They have no basis for this discussion. No test has ever been done on the effects of Bluetooth headsets on brain cancer!

Here is what they are not telling you: Bluetooth headsets operate a frequency of 2.4-2.5 GHz. Your microwave oven operates at a similar frequency. The headset puts out 2.5 mill watts of power, at a distance closer to your brain than the cell phone! Earpieces are inserted into the ear canal making them closer! The 2.5 mill watts of power is 2.5 times higher than the energy form the cell phone at normal conditions. How anyone can recommend going from a cell phone to a Bluetooth headset is beyond my understanding…unless of course you sell Bluetooth headsets.

DBars (DA-BARS)

The bars on the cell phone can be a good indicator of whether or not your phone is operating at full output power or at the levels that I describe, which are at 1 milliwatt…minimal power. First, the higher the energy that you receive from the tower, the closer the tower is to you and the less energy the cell phone has to put out to reach the tower. More bars on your phone = lower transmission levels of your phone. The power level of your phone transmitting to the tower is inversely proportional to the received signal from the tower. Da Bars! Can you trust the bars on your phone? 5 Bars is FULL? Only with some phones. Motorola we have always found to be truthful with their display of the bars. 3 bars means -75 dBm of downlink signal, and full bars, usually means -60 dB. Each bar on the Motorola phone represents 10 -20 times energy difference. Now, with Samsung, LG etc., they like to ‘juice’ those bars up. That means that 5 bars on their phone could still mean a lower signal coming form the tower and a high signal generated from your phone. In fact the carriers like giving those people that complain about signal levels on their phones the juiced up models…that way they can full you into thinking you got better signal! If you have 1 or two bars, you can be certain that your cell phone has to power up to full, most of the time. You also notice that the cell phones battery runs out quicker… because it is transmitting at full power!

So what can be done about lowering the energy level of the cell phone so that I minimize the risks, if any, associated with electromagnetic radiation exposure? What you need to do is get better downlink signals from the tower so that your phone does not have to power up as high. There are several ways to do this

1. Use an External Antenna

In some phones, there is a ” small plug located at the back either top or bottom…Behind this plug is a jack that connects directly to the antenna output of the cell phone. With an adapter connected to a cable plugged into this port, you can add an external antenna that can be placed at least 1 meter (3 feet) away from you. A few things happen as a result. The amount of energy you get from the external antenna at 3 feet is 1000 times less than that of the antenna of the cell phone when placed against you rear. As well, since this antenna is more efficient than the small one at the back of your cell phone, the phone is more efficient in transmitting and receiving the signal and therefore powers down to the lowest levels. In some cases this amounts to 10000 times less energy needed, increased talk time, and better reception of course no dropped calls. The Antenna can be stuck to the car window (we have suction cop antennas) to your window at your house as well. OR you can simply hold it at a distance or place it beside you. With the Magnetic mount antennas., placing it outside the car or home results in a doubling of the signal levels of the towers, and halving of the transmission energy of the cell phone.

2. Install a docking station.

We have two products on our side, one made by Dock N talk, and the other is Siemens Gigaset. These two products connect to your cell phone either wirelessly or via a cable to the data port. By placing the docking station near a window, say in your kitchen and attaching the cell phone to it, your signal level of the cell phone will be higher. More importantly, the cell phone when transmitting will be nowhere near you. That is because these two products connect the cell phone directly to the landline phone sin your home. When someone calls your cell number, the house phone rings. You pick it up, (even has caller ID) and you answer just like you would if the phone is up against your ear. AS well, you can dial out. The cell phone does not have to be next to you! It can be anywhere else in the house. The added benefit of course is that you can get rid of your landline entirely and use the cell phone only.

3. Adding a repeater system.

If you have at least 3 bars outside your home and 1-2 bars inside, you are a perfect candidate for Cell phone booster or Repeater. The reason the signal level is lower in your house than outside is because building materials absorb and reflect radio frequency signals. Our repeater system simply put bridges this resistance, and takes the signal from outside, amplifies it and transmits it inside. Similarly the signal from your phone gets amplified and sent to the tower. You install an antenna outdoors, run the cable inside to the amplifier and install a small indoor antenna. Turn it on and presto! 1 bar becomes 5, and as I said, the more bars you see on your phone the less signal is being transmitted.

Some may ask, but what about the energy coming from the repeater? Isn’t that a worry? Fact is because our antenna outside sees the tower… the amount of energy that is being picked up and amplifier is about the same as the output power of the cell phone. The difference is that the antenna of the repeater is located three or more feet from where you are. That means the signal level from the repeater is 1000 times or more less than that of your cell phone at your ear! No worries here! We have repeaters for small homes, offices, warehouse and even hospitals and hotels. The added benefit of course is not only do you reduce the radiation level of the cell phones, you increase talk time, get less dropped calls, and you are able to use your phone in more places than before.

4. How about the RAD sticker?

There are many products on the market that tell you that they will reduce the energy of the cell phone. Stickers placed at the back of your phone for instance are nothing more than a sham. Any metal placed near the antenna of a cell phone causes the cell phone to get less signal from the tower…and if you have been reading….forces your phone to power up at higher levels!

5. More Text Messaging less Phone Use.

Use text messaging more often. I always wonder in this world of progress, how we ended up back with text messaging. IF you are older, and remember the days of the pager, you would dial a phone number for a pager, and a signal would be sent, the pager would beep and the person would call his answering service. That migrated to being able to send the phone number to the pager of the party that wanted to be called, to being able to answer back to another pager by a small keyboard on the pager that you received it or sending a message. This migrated to being able to call someone using a cell phone rather than paging them. This migrated to paging them on a cell phone, then finally text messaging them instead of calling them. How the hell did we do a full 360 degree circle with technology that was supposed to move us forward?

Having said that, the best you can do, is use the technology sparingly. There is no reason to talk on a cell phone if you have a landline near you. AS well, you could do the good old fashion way of waiting until you get home to call your friend. What is so urgent? If the WHO is right, and maybe they are wrong, or maybe next year they will look at the facts, be pressured by the CTIA (organization that represents the carriers) and have their ruling about cell phones overturned. Perhaps even better….they will read my article, ask the people performing the study to study more… and maybe 50 years from now, we will get a different answer…. Cell Phones are healthy! They reduce your stress levels. Less stress = better health. Higher tower signals = lower cell phone transmission power = better health.

If you have any concern whatsoever regarding the use of the cell phone, you can abstain from using it of course. However, any and all of the solutions described above will certainly decrease the energy levels, reduce the risk of cancer if any, and provide you with decent coverage and less dropped calls.