Conclusions:
Over the last two decades the cellphone has become the cornerstone of communication in our society. It has evolved to more than just a phone on the go, to become virtually a computer that fits in your pocket. The most modern cellphones on the market can not only send your voice across the country in seconds, but also send messages, e-mails, pictures, videos, stream data from the Internet, stream live TV, and even function as a wireless modem to connect other appliances to the Internet. In essence the cellphone has become the quintessential human-digital link. There are those however that worry that there might be some correlation to the radiation exuded by cellphones, and a number of health issues (e.g. brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure). So far no correlation between the two has been found.
When searching for a correlation between cellphones and health concerns one must take into consideration the cellphone’s radiofrequency. As an apparatus, cell phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, which is to say that they do emit radiofrequency but at very low ranges. Over the last two decades many organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) specifically The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) a subdivision of WHO, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have run a large number of studies to ensure the safety of cellphones, and make sure that they do not have adverse effects on their users. WHO officials assure the public that “ research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency… [and that] research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms” (WHO: Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health). Thus making the continual usage of cellphones safe, despite the popular notion that cellphone radiation can cause cancer or even “microwave to brain” as some radicals proclaim. Another popular argument is that cellphones have only become so widespread in the last two decades, thus the long-term effects have not been properly examined; WHO purports, however, that “results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term” (WHO: Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health).
Like any other product on the market in America, cellphones have safety regulations set forth by entities like the FDA and the FCC. In conjunction, these two agencies have derived a unit called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is a measure of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The FCC limit on the amount of radiofrequency that cellphones can emit has been set at 1.6 watts per kg of human tissue. According the FCC website, it (FCC) “regulates the phone manufacturing industry to ensure that all cell phones emit radiation below a level that experts agree could cause health issues.” So disregard the popular notion that cellphones cause brain tumors, and keep texting away and if you are concerned about radiation from your phone please visit the FCC website:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you
As for our data, the average radiofrequency (RF) radiation released from smart phones during an outgoing text was 3.01V/m and for outgoing calls 3.21V/m. The average RF radiation released from non-smart phones during an outgoing text was 3.68V/m and for outgoing calls 3.59V/m. Non-smart phones show a slightly larger amount of average radiation for both texts (0.67V/m difference) and calls (0.38V/m difference). This finding was unexpected; we expected to find smart phones emitting more radiation due to their Internet connectivity and larger data bandwidth allocations. Only AT&T and Verizon had enough data to compare average radiation levels across providers. Verizon had a higher average radiation for outgoing texts, 2.67V/m to AT&T’s 2.25V/m, a difference of 0.42V/m. However, AT&T had a higher average radiation level for outgoing calls, 3.09V/m compared to Verizon’s 2.27V/m, a difference of 0.82V/m. More data would need to be collected to be more certain that these differences hold in general.
Sources of error or uncertainty in the data include changes in radiation due to the college’s Wi-Fi, and whether smart phones were Jailbroken or not. The only outlier, an iPhone 3GS with T-Mobile which had 22V/m for an outgoing text and 23.4V/m for an outgoing call, was the only phone in the data set known to be Jailbroken. Other sources of uncertainty include the orientation of the RF meter to the phone and its antenna, the proximity of other phones in crowded areas, and whether the reading was taken inside or outside.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Consumer Report. “How Risky Is Cell Phone Radiation?” Business Solutions & Software for Legal, Education and Government | LexisNexis. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., Jan. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t>.
FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You | FCC.gov.” Home | FCC.gov. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you>.
WHO. “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health.” World Health Organization. WHO Media Centre, May 2006. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html>.