TIPRP and the Effects
of Use of Mobile Phones on Human Health
Purpose
This promotion will increase awareness of health care organizations and the public about the effect of mobile phone use on human health.
How Do Mobile Phones Communicate?
The Debate Over Mobile Phones and Brain Cancer
The International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the electromagnetic fields
produced by mobile phones as possibly carcinogenic to humans (WHO, 2014). Video 1 D shows the debate over the risk of brain cancer from
use of cell phones (Youtube, 2011).
Evaluation of Biochemical Parameters in Mobile Phone Users
Abu Khadra, Khalil, Abu Samak, and Aljaberi (2014) evaluated biochemical parameters in 12 young males’ saliva before and after their use of mobile phones. The authors wrote that super oxide dismutase (SOD) is a specific antioxidant enzyme that dismutates O●-2 to form H2O2. The increased SOD activity indicates cellular response to oxidative stress to protect cells from nonthermal damage; cytochrome c assay was used to detect extracellular release of superoxide anions (O●-2). Uric acid is a major antioxidant in saliva (Abu Khadra et al., 2014). The finding of increased SOD activity in human saliva indicates that mobile phone use increases production of oxidative reactive species (ROS) that could cause potential DNA and other cell damage (Abu Khadra et al. 2014). Table 1 B shows salivary concentration levels of four antioxidant makers at 0, 15, and 30 minutes of talking time. Figure 1 B shows the same four-antioxidant levels in graphs.
Recommendations
Because
electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones increase the risk of carcinogenesis in many animals and electromagnetic fields are a
function of the distance (inverse square law), using hands-free technology,
such as Blue tooth, and texting, can
avoid direct contact between the phone and the head (Figures 5C, 7 C, &
8C). Thus, individuals, health care workers included, can have less exposure to
magnetic fields (RFR-EMF).
You bring up a controversial subject, your articles are very interesting and in reviewing them and along with other research it appears that the jury is not in on this issue. Most of the articles do not seem definitive on whether there is actual increase or not, it seems that the subject requires more research. I do agree with your position of caution, and we should proceed with caution, until there is a definitive position. Thanks for illustrating this important issue.
ReplyDeleteRobert Smith
I agree that this is an interesting and controversial subject. I did some searching and found other studies that both agreed and disagreed with the risks associated with cell phone use. What I found most interesting was a study by Wiedemann, Boerner, and Repacholi, (2014) that surmised that while some minimal risk may exist, many people involved in the analysis and certainly the general public have a very poor understanding of how radiation transmission from cell phones actually occurs.
ReplyDeleteWiedemann, P. M., Boerner, F. U. and Repacholi, M. H. (2014), Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?. Bioelectromagnetics, 35: 373–378. doi: 10.1002/bem.21851
Hello Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your post. The general public does not understand the meaning of the IARC classification of 2B. It does not mean sitting on the fence of personal safety or the statement: 2B or not 2B. We predict that IARC will upgrade the classification of RFR-EMI to Group 1, in a decade or more.