1. Do cell phones cause CANCER?
  2. Are there any new evidence that shows a change in brain activity or performance?
  3. Is SAR a new virus?
  4. Why is SAR important?
  5. Does your cell phone meet the specified SAR limit?
  6. What if I use the hands free kit and put my cell phone in my trouser or breast pocket?
  7. If I have lost my cell phone manual how do I determine the SAR of my cell phone?
  8. I read that the radiation exposure varies depending on signal strength. Is that true ?
  9. What about SMARTPHONES?
  10. Are there other medical problems associated with over exposure to RF?
  11. Are occupational exposures a hazard?

At this point, the experts remain undecided for the following reasons:

  • The International EMF Project stated that results of the INTERPHONE Study (see WHO fact sheet 193, June 2011) that there was no increased risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years.
  • The INTERPHONE Study showed that there were cases of increased risk of glioma for heavy cell phone users and that there was no available data for cell phone use longer than 15-20 years.The IARC Monographs Working Group concluded as follows, “With limited evidence for carcinogenicity in humans based on an
    increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour–among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic
    fields were classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).”
  • There were many world-wide case studies submitted and studied by the IARC Working group showing evidence of an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with ipsilateral mobile-phone use. However, the Working Group concluded that the evidence/bias was not sufficient to explain the positive findings.
  • When used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and up to ten times higher in the bone
    marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.The American Academy of Paediatrics (APP) has urged the US Government to legislate the limiting of cell phone use by children
    due to unknown risks.

In 2009, Dr. Nora Volkow conducted studies to investigate the effect of cell phone use on brain electrical activities.

This carefully designed experiment/study was the first to show increased glucose metabolism in the brain region closet to the antenna. See link for more details :

Dr. Volkow’s conceded that this finding is still of unknown significance however, when Dr. Volkow gave an interview later, she stated that she is now more cautious with the use of her cell phone and she keeps it away from her head.

No. It is not a virus. SAR is the acronym for Specific Absorption Rate. It is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic field, and is defined as the energy absorbed per mass of tissue; watts per kilogram (W/kg).

As mentioned earlier SAR is the rate of energy absorbed by the body exposed to RF source, which in this case comes from the cell phone.
The MCMC (the Malaysian equivalent of the FCC) requires that all cell phone manufacturers (I,e. Samsung, APPLE, Nokia, Blackberry, etc)
state the value of the SAR in the technical manual a.k.a instruction book. Stating the SAR value is a MANDATORY
requirement since it is to ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the maximum permissible
exposure levels even when operating in conditions which result in the device’s highest possible level.

Yes!…. But, only if you hold your cell phone about ½ inch away from your head. Placing your cell phone against your
head may cause the limit to be above the stated SAR value. Most of the cells phones manuals clearly state that you are not to
place your cell phone directly against your head. And, thus most cell phone manufacturers provide an ear piece together with
the cell phone for this purpose.

The same rule applies… your cell phone must be about ½ inch away from your body, whether it may be head,
heart or crotch region.Excerpt from IARC Monograph Vol. 1o2 Part2 states:The use of hands-free kits lowers exposures from mobile phones to less than 10% of the value resulting from use at the ear, but it may increase exposure to other parts of the body.

Thus, the use of a hands free kit will not be of use in this case.

Due to legislative requirements, all manufacturers’ websites include the SAR value for all models manufactured. There are websites like CNET that also provide SAR information.

The fewer the bars, weaker signal. For each bar lost due to poor signal strength the cell phone increases its power by up to 1000% just to maintain the connection, which implies a higher radiation exposure.

Smartphones are different from standard cellphones in that they download information/data continuously whilst it is switched on. Thus even if you are not speaking and your Smartphone is in your pocket, it emits radiation whilst the data is downloaded. If the signal is low, you will be exposing your body to very high levels of radiation.

Yes, over exposure to RF can cause the following medical conditions:

  • Rouleux.
    It is a condition whereby our blood cells cluster together like a stack of coins. Under this condition, our blood cells can’t absorb and carry oxygen and it makes it difficult for blood cells to flow through the many capillaries in our body. It is a pre-cursor to many serious ailments/diseases. This condition can happen if we are always at our computers/laptops or in high electronics/electrical environment.
  • Infertility.
    Studies on male fertility shows that excessive exposure to the electro – magnetic radiation from sources like cell phones, radar, high power electrical/electronic sources actually decreases semen quality in men. The sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology are decreased. Thus, placing your cell phone in trousers or exposure from EMF from occupational hazards may cause infertility.
  • Childhood LeukaemiaExcerpt from IARC, stated;
    Ecological studies in which distance was taken as a proxy for exposure consistently showed a pattern of increased risk of adult and childhood leukaemia with closer proximity to the exposure source, while studies that used analytical designs and better exposure assessments (e.g. measured and modelled) showed no increased risk.From the limited data available no conclusions could be drawn on the risk of leukaemia or lymphoma from environmental exposure to RF radiation.

    However, independent researchers seem to conclude that the risk of contracting leukaemia is possibly twice as high among children who are exposed to magnetic fields over 0.4 μT for lengthy periods.

Studies shows, while there were weak suggestions of a possible increase in risk of leukaemia or lymphoma associated with occupational exposure to RF radiation (military technicians in aviation electronic), the limited exposure assessment and possible confounding make these results difficult to interpret.

Counter of Visitors web counter