IT Centers => Binga Wireless Project => Topic started by: Peter Kuthan / AZFA on April 17 2010

Title: The Unspoken Risks of Cell Phones and Wireless Networks
Post by: Peter Kuthan / AZFA on April 17 2010
By Glenn Ashton

Date posted: 13 April 2010
View this article online here:

Africa has been catapulted into the electronic age over the past decade and a half by an almost incomprehensibly swift growth in telecommunications technology driven primarily by a massive rollout of cell phones and wireless technology throughout the continent.
While few can deny the economic benefits that this growth has brought to a continent historically hobbled by a patchy telecommunications infrastructure, the physical risks of this explosive growth on the health of the people of Africa have neither been quantified nor are they being monitored.
Call the technology what you will cell phones, mobile telephony, wireless networks the reality is that these devices have changed the manner in which Africa communicates in ways completely unforeseen a decade ago. Goods are traded, banking and money exchanges facilitated and contacts with business and family networks are managed in previously impossible ways.
A decade ago three in a hundred people in Africa had access to telephony through landlines. Today one in three Africans have cell phones and the majority of Africa's people have access to telecommunications. Massive wealth has been created through the rollout of wireless networks. But while this industry creates and enables massive wealth transfers, what is it doing to our health?

The rollout of electronic communication devices has moved beyond mere mobile cell phone telephony, rapidly branching into wireless Internet connectivity and other high speed, high capacity data services.
These require the installation of not only more powerful transmission systems but also technologies that utilise complex pulsed, modulated signals. For instance new wi-max devices use sophisticated 'beam formed' signals that are often positioned in high density residential areas, with little consultation, oversight or monitoring.
When concerns have been raised about the health effects of both cell phones and the base stations that enable the electronic networks, the industry is quick to claim the technology is safe. There is obviously a significant vested interest, which seeks to protect the astronomical profits this technology generates globally.
This industry has demonstrated a propensity for being economical with any facts that may harm its bottom line. There have been several cases of the increasingly powerful cell phone industry acting against the public interest in order to maximise profits.
The cell phone revolution has immersed us in unprecedented levels of microwave radiation that not only swamp natural background radiation levels but, more importantly, have real and potentially serious health implications.
We should remember that humans have historically been exposed to extremely low levels of such non-ionising radiation. Radio astronomers joke that if Neil Armstrong had taken a modern cell phone to the moon in 1969, it would have registered as the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, eclipsed only by the sun and the Milky Way.
An increasing number of studies from around the world clearly demonstrates how the increasing bombardment of people, animals, birds, plants, insects and other life forms by electronic transmissions does carry real risks.
These studies are emerging from a burgeoning body of published scientific research. While this research initially focused on how microwave radiation can endanger users through heating body tissues, this risk is now understood to be only of peripheral concern.
The ostensibly neutral body created by the United Nations World Health Organisation to inform it on the risks of cell phone and other non-ionising radiation, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, (ICNIRP) concentrated mainly on this aspect of the heating risk of microwave communication devices and found no clear evidence of damage of this. However this is far from the only risk associated with this technology.
It must be borne in mind that ICNIRP relied mainly on tests from the early generation cell phones, which have both a lower frequency (around 900 MHz) and wave complexity than the so called 3rd and 4th generation units (3G and 4G) that operate at far higher 1800 MHz bandwidth and transmission complexity. Other frequencies (2.4 2.6 GHz) are increasingly being utilised for the likes of wi-fi and wi-max for wireless broadband computer networks.
There are now dozens of studies which have found evidence of other risks such as interference with the blood brain barrier and neuronal activity, cardiological risks, impacts on the immune system, damage to the reproductive system, disruption of the endocrine system,  damage to genes and finally risks of causing cancer(carcinogenity). These and other impacts have been documented in published, peer-reviewed studies.
Besides the risks related to cell phone technology, the increasing use of wi-fi and other data networks has been shown to carry equal, if not higher, risks. Many schools, universities and even towns have banned or curtailed the use of so called 'hotspots' for wireless interconnectivity due to the perceived dangers related to the use of these frequencies.
South Africa has at least one documented cluster of negative health effects arising near wi-max broadband antennae, with alarming related side effects, including rashes, dizziness, insomnia and tinnitus, inability to concentrate and headaches. It is notable that these symptoms have shown up across people of all ages and even in pets.
This is only one of many cases around the world linked to negative health effects from wireless transmission masts of various types, in all of which similar negative health results are documented. Non-ionised radiation sensitivity has recently become a recognised and increasingly widespread medical condition.
While concerns have long been aired about cell phone masts, clear evidence is now emerging about the effects on both humans and animals. Young children have been shown to be higher at risk than adults, prompting many developed nations to advise limiting children's exposure to cell phones.
Wildlife studies have demonstrated proof of reduced reproduction in birds nesting near transmission sites. Rodent studies demonstrate statistically significant linkages between exposure and loss of fertility, as well as increased rates of cancer related to genetic damage. The publication of a new meta-analysis of the cancer risk of cell phones has been delayed by over 4 years due to strong disagreements between participants in the analysis of the data.
The proliferation of wireless networks throughout Africa has largely been driven by the commercial imperative, which has succeeded where government funded telecommunications rollouts have failed.
However government oversight of this new industry has been limited to economic regulation of the growth in state revenue through taxation and through sale of sections of the electromagnetic spectrum to cell phone and Internet companies by governments.
Governments must responsibly and transparently regulate wireless transmission systems, which. These are often placed in the densest which are often the poorest and least empowered - neighbourhoods. While the health costs may be deferred, the risk remains the burden of the state, an externalised cost of this business model. A precautionary approach seems sensible, at least.
Nations, which maintain accurate statistical data, such as Sweden, have shown remarkable negative impacts on health and absenteeism rates after the installation of these new generation data transmission systems. Consequently limitations have been placed on where base stations are located and the types of electromagnetic emissions that are permitted in various locales.
In Africa and most of the global south there is little such oversight. Even supposedly technologically sophisticated nations like South Africa rely on outdated and largely irrelevant data to regulate this industry. That ICNIRP has inadequately interrogated critical aspects of electromagnetic radiation and its effects on living organisms remains ignored by health officials and oversight bodies.
Regulators across the continent need to be properly informed about this complex issue. Unbiased data must be made available and digested by both the public and decision makers.
Just as the second half of the 20th century was epitomised by the growth and impacts of the chemical revolution, so the first decade of the 21st century is epitomised by the growth and impacts of the electronic and electromagnetic revolution. Just as chemical companies opposed (and continue to fight) regulation of their toxic products, so too the cell phone and data transmission industry will resist any threat to their profitability.
The facts must be carefully examined from all possible perspectives. Only when we have fully satisfied ourselves as to the safety of these devices can we permit the continued unregulated growth of this industry.
Yes, the wireless revolution may make our lives easier. Yes, it may make the business of business more efficient. But if this comes at the risk and the cost of our collective health, then the costs and benefits must be borne and regulated accordingly.

Glenn Ashton is a writer and researcher working in civil society. Some of his work can be viewed at