Hello Everyone.
You must understand that we are not against mobile phone use, nor the
technology. However, some rationality must be brought back to the
industry, if nothing more than caution. My personal situation concerns
the establishment of  a TELSTRA (Telecom Australia) base station,
comprising 6 towers, less than 100 metres away from a primary school.
For heavens sake, the wise people employed by the telcos must
acknowledge that, given the uncertainity of the long-term effects of
pulsed microwave radiation, it would be prudent to place the
transmitters elsewhere. Growing children will be exposed to the EMF for
upto 8 hours a day, everyday. That can't be good, nor should it be
tolerated - despite what is said about "lack of evidence".

Please read the following article taken from an Australian Government
website and decide for yourself, but please do not ridicule our
movement and brush us off as crack-pots. We are all genuinely concerned
parents.

Also, if you happen to be in Sydney Australia, a Community rally will
be held in protest on Sunday, May 15th 2005 at 11:00AM. Venue: Norton
St Plaza. Leichhardt 2040. Bring the whole family!

========================================Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 27 September 2001 by the Parliamentary Library Web
Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC

Electromagnetic Radiation from TV and Mobile Phone Towers: Health
Aspects

Rod Panter
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group

Contents
Introduction

The Electromagnetic Spectrum - Radiofrequency Range

Thermal Effects of Radiofrequency EMR - Relation to Standards

Energy of RF Radiation from TV and Mobile Phone Towers

Non-Thermal Effects of RF Radiation

Government Responses

References

Introduction
The acceptance of mobile phones in Australia has been phenomenal, a
total of about four and a half million being presently in use. However,
not so welcome for many people has been the sprouting of mobile
telephone towers in unexpected places close to homes and schools. There
are now about 2000 of them. It is reported that expanding phone
companies in the US are hiding the antennae in church steeples, arena
lighting, artificial trees and flagpoles. It is the newness and the
close proximity of these towers that has made them more controversial
than the established radio and TV towers. However, all transmit
electromagnetic radiation (often referred to by officials as
'electromagnetic energy' in order to avoid the term 'radiation') which
some scientists have implicated in increased incidence of cancer.

Undoubtedly there has been an aesthetic angle to the debate on mobile
phone tower placement; some residents find them very ugly and likely to
depress house values for that reason alone. But a Four Corners program
in July 1995 alerted many Australians for the first time to the
possible health effects not only of high-power transmitters but of
mobile phone use. Anecdotal but still compelling accounts of cancer
association with exposure to transmitters and mobile phone use featured
in the program. A CSIRO report of the previous year(1) had urged that
more research on health effects be carried out. Also in 1995, a
preliminary study of cancer incidence in Sydney appeared to show an
increase of childhood leukaemia in homes relatively close to TV
transmitters(2). Meanwhile, there has been a controversial move to have
the existing Australian radiation standard loosened by a factor of five
in order to bring it into line with overseas standards.

This paper is intended to provide background on the two-year Australian
debate on the possible hazards of electromagnetic radiation from
transmitter towers. Of immediate importance is the prospect of looser
national electromagnetic radiation standards, which raises questions as
to the validity of the basis for such standards in terms of what
laboratory or other results have been relied on for setting standards.
The relative energy of radiation received from transmitter towers
compared with hand-held mobile phones is relevant and is discussed. So
also is the range of reported laboratory effects on test animals and
cells observed at very low levels of radiation near the standard or
less; are they meaningful? The paper concludes with a suggested
approach to experimental work which may help us to determine whether
Australian and world standards are soundly based or not.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum - Radiofrequency Range
For an understanding of the issues involved, it is necessary to have
some knowledge of the range and nature of the electromagnetic radiation
(EMR) spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation may be thought of in terms of
waves in air which transmit energy but can also be modulated
(controlled) through amplitude, pulsing, etc. to transmit speech, TV
images and so on. These waves have a range or spectrum of frequency
expressed in hertz, i.e. cycles per second. At the higher frequencies
we have kilohertz, megahertz and gigahertz. The greater the frequency,
the shorter the wavelength and the greater the energy transmitted.

A significant division within the EMR spectrum is the frequency at
about 10 million gigahertz above which waves become ionising in nature,
i.e. they are capable of knocking electrons out of atoms to form ions.
Thus ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma radiation are ionising because
they are of greater frequency than 10 million gigahertz. When directed
at the body, such radiation is known to be capable of initiating cancer
through damage to genetic material (DNA). Too much sunlight, too many
X-rays or too much exposure to the gamma-radiating isotope cobalt-60
can cause cancer.

That part of the EMR spectrum of concern in this paper is non-ionising
and is known as radiofrequency/microwave radiation (RF radiation for
short). This is defined in the Australian Standard (AS 2772.-1990) as
waves having frequencies from 100 kilohertz up to 300 gigahertz. The
radiofrequency spectrum includes, in increasing order of energy, waves
from AM radio, FM radio, TV (very high and ultra high frequency),
mobile phones, police radar, microwave ovens and satellite stations.

All electromagnetic radiation involves an oscillating electric field
and a magnetic field. Whereas at the extremely low frequency end of the
spectrum (e.g. AC current at 50 or 60 hertz) the two fields can be
measured and considered separately, in the radiofrequency spectrum they
are measured together. The intensity ('power density') of the combined
fields can be readily expressed in terms of a power unit relative to
area (e.g. watts per square centimetre) which denotes the electric and
magnetic fields as a multiple. Absorption of electromagnetic radiation
energy by living organisms can be expressed in terms of watts per
kilogram. This represents the dose, or more correctly, the specific
absorption rate (SAR). The value for SAR is not always easy to
calculate, especially in respect of individual organs or cell types.

Intense waves in the radiofrequency spectrum are readily able to raise
the temperature of, say, a culture of cells brought near the source of
radiation (the principle of the microwave oven) as wave energy is
converted to heat energy on contact with the cells. This is known as a
thermal effect. However, because the radiation is non-ionising there is
no electron stripping of cellular DNA and therefore no direct
initiation of cancer. Radiofrequency standards to protect health are
totally based on avoiding thermal effects (see below).

Thermal Effects of Radiofrequency EMR - Relation to Standards
The thermal or heating effects of radiofrequency radiation (including
microwaves) on living organisms are well known, they are dose-related
and they are mostly reproducible. These crucial characteristics have
been regarded by many scientists as justifying the selection of thermal
effects as a powerful and single basis for determining health
standards. The following information has been adapted from information
contained in the previously mentioned CSIRO review report.

Heating caused by RF radiation is caused mainly by water molecules
lining up with the electric field imposed by the radiation. Since the
field is oscillating very rapidly (wave frequency), the water molecules
are rapidly swinging one way then another in sympathy, thus generating
heat. Some biological molecules are also influenced by applied electric
fields.

Exposure of people to a dose of radiofrequency radiation of less than
about 4 watts per kilogram body weight is thought to give rise to an
increase in body temperature of less than 1o Centrigrade and can be
reasonably well tolerated for short periods. Higher induced
temperatures are not tolerated, however, and have several well-known
deleterious effects, depending on the precise location of radiation
absorption. An effect observed at RF intensities sufficient to raise
the rectal temperature of an experimental animal by 1o C or more is
classified as thermal in nature. Such effects could be induced by any
method designed to raise body temperature.

Firstly, the skin can detect RF radiation but the sensation is much
less than that from infrared radiation and is extremely dependent on
frequency which determines penetration. In the range 0.5-100 gigahertz,
skin detection is not regarded as a reliable warning mechanism.

Heat effects on brain tissue are thought to be the reason why people
can actually hear pulsed radiofrequencies between 200 megahertz and 6.5
gigahertz. The sound is described as 'buzzing, clicking, hissing or
popping'.

Thirdly, the eyes are felt to be peculiarly sensitive to RF radiation.
Lens tissue has no blood supply to act as coolant, there is little
self-repair at that site and thus damage and damage products tend to
accumulate. At a threshold of about 41o C, exposed laboratory rabbits
show cataract formation. Further work needs to be done on the
susceptibility of primate eyes, which seem to be less sensitive.

Fourthly, rat testes exposed to RF radiation leading to temperature
increases of 1.5-3.5o C are damaged to the extent that there is
temporary infertility and an altered division pattern of germ cells.

Fifthly, the thermal disruption of behaviour by RF radiation, e.g. task
learning and short term memory, has been demonstrated in the rat.
Effects were observed at doses between 0.6 and 8 watts per kilogram.

Sixthly, the circulatory and immune system in rodents shows some
alterations in response to RF radiation. For example, blood cell counts
decline in some experiments while the immune system appears to be
stimulated. Once again, these effects appear to be thermally induced.

One laboratory has reported symptoms similar to heat stroke leading to
death in rats following exposure at three microwave frequencies.

Lastly, a body temperature of 43o C in pregnant rats brought about by a
dose of 11 watts per kilogram of RF radiation caused abnormalities and
death of embryos. So long as there is a temperature increase of at
least 2.5o C, birth defects can be expected to occur.
It has already been observed that RF standards are based on the
prevention of thermal effects since these are well accepted in the
scientific community and are generally reproducible. Two standards will
be mentioned here, namely, the American National Standards
Institute/American Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(ANSI/IEEE) Standard C95.1-1991 and the Australian Standard 2772.1-1990
(Standards Australia). Both are designed for the RF/microwave spectrum
(100 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz).

ANSI power density limits for members of the public vary within the RF
range from a low of 0.2 milliwatts per square centimetre (mW/square cm)
at 100 megahertz to a high of 10 mW/square cm from about 10 gigahertz.
The ANSI standard at the frequency used for Australian mobile phones
(800-1000 megahertz) is slightly less than 1 mW/square cm.

Australian Standard 2772.1-1990 lists a constant limit of 0.2 mW/square
cm (equal to 200 microwatts/square cm for members of the public at
frequencies between 30 megahertz and 300 gigahertz. Thus, at Australian
mobile phone frequencies our national standard is about five times
stricter than the ANSI standard.

As is the case for many other US standards, the ANSI determination is
influential here and there is a strong move for the Australian standard
to be loosened by a factor of five in order to correspond to ANSI's
limit. It is therefore important to be able to assess the basis of ANSI
reckoning on RF safety.

According to the CSIRO, the US approach to its standard has been to
consider thermal effects of RF radiation only, and to regard
behavioural changes in experimental animals as the most sensitive of
those effects. In contrast to ionising radiation, where adverse effects
on people are well documented, RF effects on humans are inadequately
described, which explains the need for animal results. Of course this
raises the immediate question: can experimental animals, especially
small animals, provide an adequate model?

Since it is always necessary to dose non-human primates with more than
4 watts per kilogram body weight for behavioural effects to appear,
this has been taken by ANSI as the official threshold for humans. As
mentioned earlier, 4 watts per kilogram is also the approximate
threshold for human tolerance of the heat generated. A tenfold and a
fifty-fold safety factor has been applied to the threshold for
occupational and non-occupational exposure limits and the corresponding
power density figure worked out. Thus, the five-fold stricter
Australian (non-occupational) standard is 250 times (i.e. 50x5) below
the experimental animal threshold for thermally induced behavioural
changes.

Energy of RF Radiation from TV and Mobile Phone Towers
In this paper it has been necessary to describe RF standards and their
basis in some detail in order to assess emissions of radiation from TV
and mobile phone towers. Note that both telecommunications carriers and
broadcasting stations are required to adhere to Australian Standard
2772.1-1990.

TV towers have a much higher power rating-and thus give out more
intense radiation- than mobile phone towers. For example, the TV
transmitter on top of Black Mountain, Canberra, is rated at 300
kilowatts. A typical mobile phone tower is emitting only about 20
watts, i.e. 15 000 times weaker. Perhaps fortunately, most large TV
towers are situated on hilltops which are relatively far from housing.
It is the occasional exception, for example, on Sydney's North Shore,
that deserves special attention.

Since radiation from both TV and mobile phone towers is not directed
vertically downwards, there is not a simple relationship between the
tower-observer distance and the strength of electric and magnetic
fields combined as EMR. Take firstly the case of mobile phone towers.
Between 0 and 10 metres from a digital mobile phone tower, levels of
exposure are approximately the same. The level of radiation peaks at
between 100 and 150 metres, intensity values ranging from 0.1 up to 1.0
microwatt/square cm, depending on how many telephones are in use at the
time (note that one microwatt equals one-thousandth of a milliwatt).
Further away than 10 metres, radiation intensity falls off rapidly,
approximating the 'inverse square' law. Radiation from analogue mobile
phone towers is slightly more intense, peaking at 4-6 microwatts. These
figures have been supplied by the Australian Radiation Laboratory.

In comparison with the Australian Standard(3) (200 microwatts/square
cm), a power density level of 6 microwatt/square cm from a mobile phone
tower (said to be a maximum value) represents only 3% of the value of
the maximum allowable power density. A more typical figure of 0.1
microwatt/square cm is only 0.05% of the standard.

Turning to larger TV broadcast towers, a person standing one kilometre
away would expect to be exposed to a power density of 5-10
microwatts/square cm of radiation. At two kilometres this reduces
greatly to about 0.5 microwatt/square cm. These figures are still far
less than the prescribed limit of 200 microwatts/square cm.

Dr Bruce Hocking, a former Telstra medical director, has presented
findings in a recent issue of The Medical Journal of Australia(4)
linking leukaemia incidence with proximity to TV towers . Radiation
levels of 8 microwatts/square cm were cited near the towers, decreasing
to 0.2 microwatts/square cm at a radius of 4 kilometres and 0.02
microwatts/square cm at a radius of 12 kilometres.

In summary, children under 15 years of age living in three Sydney
suburbs within 4 kilometres of TV towers (North Sydney, Willoughby and
Lane Cove) appear more likely to suffer from leukaemia than similarly
aged children from Ryde, Kuringai and Wahroonga, localities more
distant from TV towers. The data was retrieved from the NSW Cancer
Registry(5) between 1972 and 1990. A similar type of study found
increased levels of cancer in Honolulu, Hawaii, among people living
near TV towers(6).

Dr Hocking stresses that his results are preliminary but they show that
further research is warranted. The association between TV towers and
cancer is certainly not proven but can be regarded as
'hypothesis-generating'. Dr Hocking also regards the results as
unexpected because the measured radiation levels (up to 8
microwatts/square cm) are so far below the Australian Standard of 200
microwatts/square cm.

Opposition to mobile phone towers placed near houses can only increase
in response to this preliminary finding of a cancer link in respect of
TV transmitters. People tend to feel that sites near to schools are
particularly undesirable because children are exposed throughout the
day, yet have no choice in the matter and derive no benefit. This is in
spite of the fact that mobile phone towers are of very low power.
Mobile phone users have a much greater exposure to radiation but at
least they get the benefit of the calls as well as being able to
control their exposure by shortening conversations.

What is the RF exposure from personal mobile phone use as compared with
exposure to a mobile phone tower? As described above, such towers
radiate very small power densities of not more than about 6 microwatts
but more typically 0.1 microwatt/square cm at close range. By contrast,
an analogue phone is said to generate a power density of 0.27
milliwatts/square cm at a distance of 5 centimetres. This can be
calculated as between 45 and 2700 times greater than radiation
intensity from a mobile phone tower. Much discussion has centred on the
actual dose to the head resulting from normal use of an analogue or
digital phone. In terms of power density, however, the radiation
generated is clearly of the same order of magnitude as set out in the
Australian Standard for members of the public. This suggests that there
may be some pressure from manufacturers of mobile phones to have the
Australian Standard relaxed somewhat.

Non-Thermal Effects of RF Radiation
There are three levels of power densities (watts/square centimetre
readings) in relation to heating effects on tissue. They are:

High power densities, generally greater than 10 milliwatts/square cm,
at which distinct thermal effects predominate (as listed earlier in
this paper).

Medium power densities, between 1 and 10 milliwatts/square cm, where
weak but noticeable thermal effects exist, and

Low power densities, below 1 milliwatt/square cm (the Australian upper
limit for occupational exposure) where thermal effects do not appear to
exist but other effects have been reported.
This section of the paper deals with the claimed non-thermal effects
which have been reported at low and medium power densities, and
discusses the reasons why these effects have been discounted, rightly
or wrongly, as a basis for Australian and overseas standards.

Possible behavioural changes or indirect promotion of cancer is a
principal focus of low-power radiofrequency (microwave) studies. As
stated earlier, the RF spectrum is not energetic enough to cause
mutation damage to cell genetic material (DNA) and thus directly
initiate cancer. However, among the hundreds of reports of RF effects
there are some which can be interpreted as possibly assisting the
spread of cancer.

Firstly, some experiments (e.g. Ref. 7) have indicated radiation-caused
changes in the so-called blood-brain barrier. The healthy brain is an
exclusive organ which does not admit entry of many types of chemical
and biochemical substances. The research has measured abnormal passage
across the blood-brain barrier of protein-bound dyes, radioactively
labelled sugars or peroxidase enzyme in irradiated rats and hamsters.

Secondly, there are examples of disturbances to foetal development
(teratogenic effects) in mice, chicks and rats at low RF power.
Retarded development (low birth weight), eye malformations, reduction
in organ weight and embryonic death have been observed.

Experiments with RF radiation and cultured cells are thought by some
scientists to demonstrate low power (non-thermal) effects on the cell
membrane. The best-known work, that of Professor Ross Adey, has shown a
consistent increase of calcium loss from brain tissue. This indicates
that the membrane permeability has been changed. Calcium is known to be
a highly significant biochemical regulator, e.g. it controls the
division of certain cells. The RF waves may be creating free radicals
or changing the physical characteristics of fats in the cell membrane.

Non-thermal treatment which increases the rate of division of cell
lines or increases cancers in whole animals is of particular interest.
Lymphocytes, a line of white blood cells, have been reported to
proliferate more rapidly under what are claimed to be non-thermal
conditions of irradiation. Spontaneous mammary cancers and artificially
induced lung and skin cancers in mice have been said to increase under
low power RF radiation applied over varying periods up to ten months.
Another study has found that the number of spontaneous cancers in
irradiated rats increases significantly.

The above examples, plus many others in the scientific literature, are
sufficient to arouse concern over possible health consequences of
non-thermal RF irradiation in the same range of intensity or less than
Australian and overseas standards. Why then are non-thermal effects
disregarded in the current standards?

The truth is that there is no scientific consensus on non-thermal
effects, and the literature overall reveals a highly unsatisfactory
state of affairs. The effects listed above represent the most positive
results; however, lack of confirmation is a chronic problem. Many
laboratories simply cannot replicate the results of others, and
negative results are difficult to have published. One of the
difficulties with this type of research is that the experimental
variables, e.g. radiation frequency, orientation, method of modulation,
etc. are numerous and very few scientists seem to try hard enough to
standardise others' experimental conditions. Also, experiments which
are claimed to be non-thermal can be judged to involve local
temperature changes or irrelevant stress conditions. Non-thermal
effects are frequently not dose-dependent and therefore lack scientific
credibility. Lastly, there is still no universally accepted physical or
chemical mechanism to explain how RF radiation can interfere with
animal metabolism apart from heating effects. For example, the role of
the magnetic component as distinct from the electric field component,
if any, can only be guessed at.

Government Responses
At the Federal level there is a committee and a program dealing with
radiofrequency radiation and health.

The Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues is located
in the Department of Communications and the Arts. It is made up of
representatives from that Department, the Department of Health and
Family Services, The Australian Radiation Laboratory, the Spectrum
Management Agency, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, AUSTEL and the
CSIRO. The Committee's role is to coordinate the $4.5 million
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy Program announced by the
Government on 15 October 1996. The Program has three parts, namely:

public education on radiofrequency health issues

Australian participation in a World Health Program

the setting up of a research program in Australia.
With regard to the research program, the Committee is preparing a
priorities paper which is intended to be released for public
discussion. When the priorities are finalised, it will be the
responsibility of the National Health and Medical Research Council
(NH&MRC) to manage the research, in the first instance by calling for
specific proposals.

Under the circumstances, the best approach for the NH&MRC would be to
encourage good quality research at low power (non-thermal) radiation
levels. Much more scientific effort has to be invested in making the RF
field respectable. While there is no convincing evidence as yet that
low power RF sources such as mobile phone towers can increase the
incidence of cancer, some caution is warranted given that existing
health standards are based on rather narrow criteria, and that cancers
often have a long lead time (as for example, with asbestos and
mesothelioma). Since the sum of less than $4.5 million for research
will not go far, a small levy on every mobile telephone sold would help
to speed up our understanding in this area.

References
1. Barnett, S. B. CSIRO Report on the Status of Research on the
Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation:
Telecommunications Frequencies. CSIRO Division of Radiophysics, June
1994.

2. Hocking, B., Gordon, I. R., Grain, H. L. and Hatfield, G. E. Cancer
incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med. J. Aust.
December 1996, p. 601.

3. Australian Standard AS 2772.1 Radiofrequency Radiation Part 1:
Maximum Exposure Levels-100kHz to 300 GHz. Sydney: Standards Australia,
1990.

4. Hocking et al., loc. cit.

5. HealthWiz. National health database. Commonwealth Department of
Human Services and Health. 1991-1996. Canberra: Prometheus Pty Ltd,
1996.

6. Maskarinec, G., Cooper, J. and Swygert, L. Investigation of
increased incidence in childhood leukaemia near radio towers in Hawaii:
preliminary observations. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 1994:
13:33.

7. Salford, L.G., Brun, A., Eberhardt, J. L., Malmgren, L. and Persson,
R.R. in: Interaction Mechanism of Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields in
Living Systems. C. Ramel and B. Norden, eds. Oxford University Press,
1992.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 27 September 2001 by the Parliamentary Library Web
Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC

"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message

Look elsewhere.  If the above were true, we'd be seeing it everywhere.  We
aren't.

I "acknowledge" studies that show that homeopathy and prayer work as
claimed.  Empirical reality does not reveal any risk.  There is no sane
theory that predicts there should be a risk.  Look at *all* the studies.

Your'e projecting.

moo