Cellular Telephones

I just bought a new cell phone.
Congratulations! They sure are handy devices, aren't they?

Absolutely. However, I've heard these phones emit radiation, but what kind?
They emit what is known as electromagnetic radiation. However, the type of electromagnetic radiation emitted is further classified as "non-ionizing" radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation? What do you mean by that?
Well first, be aware of the fact that electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two broad classes within the electromagnetic spectrum . . . one is designated "ionizing", and the other "non-ionizing". As the name suggests, ionizing radiations have the ability to "ionize" atoms. In other words, these radiations have sufficient energy to completely knock an electron out of its orbit and remove it from the atom altogether.

Are alpha particles examples of ionizing radiation?
Very good! Yes they are. Ionizing radiations include radiations that exist as both particles and as pure energy. Particulate forms, which have both mass and electrical charge, include alpha particles. Those that are pure energy, with no mass or charge, include x-rays and gamma rays. And you probably already know that the human population is exposed to a natural background of these ionizing radiations on a continual basis.

Okay, so what about non-ionizing radiations?
In contrast to ionizing electromagnetic radiations, which have very short wavelengths and therefore higher energies, non-ionizing radiations are characterized by longer wavelengths and correspondingly lower energies. So rather than ejecting electrons from an atom, they are only able to "excite" the electrons to higher energy states.

What kinds of radiations are non-ionizing?
Regular-old electrical current falls in this category. Other examples include microwave radiation, heat, ultraviolet light, and radio, radar and sonar waves.

Are there any other interesting characteristics of non-ionizing radiations?
Yes there are. In fact, one of the characteristics that makes them so valuable for transmitting information is their ability to travel a long distance. However, they don't travel as far or penetrate matter as deeply as most ionizing radiations. That is why we need towers and antennas to relay non-ionizing radiation signals from one point to another.

You mentioned the term "electromagnetic radiation" just a bit ago. Can you tell me more about that concept?
Certainly. Electromagnetic radiation is nothing more than energy transmitted through space or through a material like air, in the form of electromagnetic waves. However, the term "electromagnetic radiation" can also refer to the emission and propagation of such energy.

How?
Whenever an electric charge oscillates or is accelerated, a disturbance characterized by the existence of electric and magnetic fields propagates or moves outward from it. This disturbance is called an "electromagnetic wave". And electromagnetic waves of various frequencies are phenomena associated with ionizing and non-ionizing radiations, including the energy emitted from cellular telephones.

What kinds of frequencies do these waves have?
The frequency range of electromagnetic waves is tremendous, ranging from less than one (1) cycle per second, or hertz ("Hz"), to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz or more. Likewise, the lengths of electromagnetic waves span a distance of 300,000,000 meters down to 0.0000000000000003 meters or less.

That's a pretty broad span. Where do ionizing and non-ionizing radiations fall?
Well, that broad span encompasses what we call the electromagnetic "spectrum", meaning the frequencies form a "continuum" as they move from low to high and back again. As a result, it is possible for the frequencies and distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing sources to blur just a bit.

I understand. But can you break down the spectrum a bit for me so that I can see what radiations fall where?
Of course. Let's start at the front end, where we have direct current from a battery, with its infinite wavelength and frequency of zero Hz. Moving up the spectrum, we see that AM radiowaves have a length of 300 meters and a frequency of 10,000,000 Hz, i.e., 10 megahertz (MHz). Microwaves, like you might find in your microwave oven, have a wavelength of 0.003 meters and a frequency of 1,000,000,000,000 Hz. Infrared light typically has a wavelength of 0.000003 meters, and a frequency of 1,000,000,000,000,000 Hz. Visible light has a typical wavelength of 0.000003 meters and a frequency of 10,000,000,000,000,000 Hz. And finally ultraviolet light, like the component of sunlight that burns your skin, has a wavelength of 0.000000003 meters and a frequency of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz.

Whew! And are these all non-ionizing radiations?
Yes they are. Generally speaking, none of the electromagnetic waves in this portion of the spectrum have the ability to strip nearby atoms of their electrons.

But what if we go further up the spectrum . . . past ultraviolet light?
When the wavelength drops even further, we start to enter the ionizing radiation region of the spectrum, which is where x-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic photons reside. The "dividing line" is somewhere around 0.00000000003 meters in wavelength, and a frequency of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Hz. Radiations with wavelengths that are shorter than this are almost certain to be ionizing in nature.

You didn't mention cell phones anywhere in the spectrum. What frequencies are they bounded by?
Cellular phones and emissions from telecommunication towers and antennas operate in the 800 to 1000 megahertz, or "MHz", range, give or take. These are the frequencies formerly used for UHF-TV broadcasting. It is bounded on one side by FM radio, and on the other side by microwaves.

Maybe I had better step back for a minute before we talk any more about non-ionizing radiations. I'd like to learn a bit more about cellular or mobile phones.
That's a good idea. A cellular or mobile phone is essentially a two-way radio . . . an extremely sophisticated radio, but a radio nonetheless.

How do they work?
They function almost exactly like conventional "land line" or home telephones, except they use radiofrequency radiation instead of wires to transfer information.

Why do they call them "cellular" phones?
Remember, I told you that the transmission distance for these electromagnetic waves is pretty small. Therefore, geographic areas are divided into prescribed cells", each of which links the entire cell phone network to a cell phone user. The radiofrequency radiation is thus sent by a transmitter, from cell to cell, until it reaches the receiver at the other end.

Is there a difference between cordless and mobile phones?
The primary difference between handheld cordless phones and mobile phones is their power output. Cordless phones generate approximately 0.6 watts, while mobile phones have an output that is about five times greater.

There are a lot of mobile phones out there, aren't there?
There certainly are. In many countries, more than half of their population uses mobile phones. The industry predicts that there will be up to 1.6 billion users worldwide by the year 2005.

Wow. Okay, now what about the antennas? I take it there are emissions of non-ionizing radiation from them too, right?
Right. Another source of radiofrequency radiation is indeed the base station antenna. There are differences between the various types of antennas used for cellular phones, but the key point is that they operate at slightly different frequencies. The RF frequency for the older types of phones is 800 MHz, as compared to the new types with their frequency range of 1,800 to 2,000 MHz. Another source of radiofrequency radiation is from FM and VHF-TV broadcast antennas, with their transmission frequency of 100 MHz. Although they send out 100 to 5000 times more power than base station antennas, broadcast antennas are usually mounted much higher in the air.

Are these antennas safe?
From a radiological perspective, the antennas do not have the potential safety issues that the phones themselves have. That is because the antenna does not cause a localized exposure unless, of course, you were to stand directly next to one - kind of hard to do with an elevated transmission point. It is, of course, easier to stand right next to the antenna on a cellular phone though.

What would happen if a person put his cellular phone on the table, left it on, without using the phone for talking, and pointed the antenna on the phone at another person essentially all day long? Would there be any health issue for the second person?
Before we get to that interesting scenario, let's cover the "distance" concept. As with almost every form of electromagnetic radiation, increasing the distance between an individual and the source of the radiation reduces the exposure. This readily demonstrable physical phenomenon forms the basis for new cell phone designs wherein the transmitter can be easily separated from the receiver through the use of headphones or ear pieces.

Well that makes sense.
Yes it does. So unless an individual was in close physical proximity to a transmitting cell phone, the exposure to the non-ionizing radiation being emitted from the phone would be trivial, at best. But keep in mind that while that cell phone was resting on the table, whether it is in the "on" or "off" position, the electromagnetic radiation exposure in its vicinity would be negligible if no transmissions were occurring - meaning that no one was engaged in a call.

I hear a lot about cell phone antennas being installed on the roofs of apartment buildings. Do these pose a health hazard of any kind to the tenants to people in surrounding buildings?
It is extremely unlikely that the placement of an antenna on an apartment complex roof poses any radiological health risk at all.

Why not?
Well, since the antenna is on a roof, and since it emits radiations with very limited penetrating ability, none of the emissions will make their way through the roof to the tenants below. Therefore, tenant exposures to this source of non-ionizing radiation are nonexistent.

That's a relief! So no risks at all, right?
No, I didn't say that! Perhaps the biggest hazard associated with roof-top antennas are physical injuries from slips, trips and falls. That is why any physical activity requiring close contact with the antenna itself, such as maintenance and repair, should be performed only on an as-needed basis, and only by individuals qualified to do this work. However, the radiological risk from roof-mounted antennas is pretty darn low.

But what about the nearby residents that are not under the same roof? For example, what if there is a school located nearby?
No problem there either. The fact that the school is located some distance from the antenna mitigates this concern due, once again, to the limited penetrating ability of the non-ionizing radiations from the tower.

You keep mentioning distance as an important factor. Exactly how does distance impact non-ionizing radiation exposures?
From a radiological perspective, we can say with confidence that the further an individual stands away from a source of radiation, the lower the radiation intensity. In fact, non-ionizing radiations behave much like ionizing radiations in this particular regard. Doubling your distance from the source does not diminish the radiation exposure received by a factor of two, but rather by two times two, or four times! Tripling your distance lowers the radiation intensity by a factor of eight, and so forth.

What about towers and antennas that are placed on the school property, but not on a roof?
Well, that's another issue. In this case, there are always concerns about physical activities that might bring school or neighborhood children in close contact with an antenna or the tower itself, such as playing or climbing. As I said before, slips, trips and falls are a far greater safety hazards than the non-ionizing radiation exposure, we we would certainly expect any towers placed on a school site to have a fence around the support structure to keep the kiddies away.

You know, I've heard that pregnant women are at greater risk from radiation exposure. What about exposure to antenna emissions?
Again, there is no evidence that the existence of an antenna on the roof of a building would pose any health risk to pregnant females, their unborn children, or couples living in the building that are planning on having children. These emissions simply cannot penetrate to the living quarters below.

Okay. But I'm still concerned about the health of small children, their families and their neighbors when I hear that a telecommunications tower is going to be sited within a few hundred feet of someone's home.
A relevant and important issue indeed. Many communities in the United States have had to face the issue of cell phone tower placement, and some have even been successful in keeping them from being sited in their neighborhoods for reasons of perceived health concerns. But let's face the facts. Knowing the proposed location of a tower is several hundred feet from your home may not ben in and of itself an ideal situation - after all, most people don't want the darn thing there. But its distance from any residence, including its significant height above the ground, offers a fair degree of assurance that the radiological impact will be trivial, if any.

So no radiological hazard exists at all?
Many studies have been and are being conducted on potential human health effects associated with microwave towers, powerline emissions, and other sources of electromagnetic radiation. To date, they have given us no evidence that a communications tower placed in a neighborhood poses any health risk to the inhabitants, including children. However, research on this topic is continuing.

I notice the issue of risk has been cited several times now. Aren't exposures to electromagnetic radiations bad for you?
Well there certainly is a lot of talk about it these days. The radiofrequency radiation and the generated electromagnetic fields from cellular or mobile phones can penetrate exposed tissues to certain depths. The actual depth depends on the frequency of the radiation. It can be up to about a centimeter at the frequencies that a cell or mobile phone uses.

Well, what happens then?
Essentially, the radiofrequency radiation gets absorbed by the tissue and produces heat. However, the body's normal thermo-regulatory process carries the heat away.

So why has there been so much controversy in the last several years on the effects of low-level electromagnetic fields?
For one, there are often conflicting results presented in the news, particularly in the area of cellular phone safety?

Conflicting? I thought you said there was no evidence of a problem?
I did. But as a case in point, a newspaper report in the United Kingdom once cited the pending release of a scientific study indicating no increased radiation risk from mobile phones, while another study of the same data indicated there is an increased risk . . . especially for children.

Well that's confusing.
It certainly is. The current problem we face regarding studies of cellular and mobile phones and other non-ionizing radiation emissions is that it is impossible at this point in time to definitively state what the effects on humans are on a long-term basis.

Why not?The risk associated with cell phone usage is clearly an area where scientific studies have had difficulty in keeping pace with the technology. Many studies have been and are currently underway to address what human health effects might be associated with these devices. To date, no statistically-significant effects above the natural incidence have been identified (i.e., there is no definitive evidence regarding the induction of cancer while operating these phones . . . assuming, of course, that they are designed appropriately and meet current safety guidelines).

Have there been animal studies?
Definitely. There have been animal studies on emissions effects, but these findings are currently inconclusive. Even if conclusive evidence is found at some time in the future, you still have the question of whether the results of animal studies can be translated, reliably, to human populations.

So, what is the bottom line in regard to cell phone safety?
The most helpful position comes from the World Health Organization (WHO). This agency has stated that, given the large numbers of users of mobile phones, even small adverse effects on health could have major public health implications. But it also stressed that present scientific information does not indicate the need for any special precautions for use of mobile or cellular phones.

But what if I am concerned about my safety anyway?
You're certainly entitled to be. However, the WHO suggests that, while research continues, if you are still concerned, you may want to limit your own or your children's exposure by limiting the length of calls, or using 'hands-free' devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body. However, the WHO has cited the only proven hazard as the increased risk to motorists using either standard or ``hands free'' phones while driving and has accordingly strongly discouraged motorists from using mobile phones.

That sounds reasonable. What does the IEM staff have to say about this issue?
Well, certainly we are not a scientific body tasked with conducting these studies, but we believe that when the presumed radiological risks from cellular and mobile phones are compared to risks we commonly take every day of our lives, such as the risks associated with driving in cars, eating fatty foods, drinking alcohol, and others, cell phone usage is pretty darn safe.

Do you think there is a period of time between the start of using a cellular phone before it becomes harmful to a person using it, or most importantly got cancer from it?
We know of no such time frame or "latency period". These handy devices, which are used more and more by people for work and personal business, present negligible, if any, radiological risk, whether the phone is in the "on" or the "off" position.

Aside from WHO, who else conducts or supports studies in this area?
One particular organization in the United Kingdom comes to mind. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides independent advice on the risks to health from radiation. As you might expect, however, other countries and scientific bodies are involved as well.

How difficult are these studies to carry out?
Very difficult. Consider the fact that the exposures involved are quite low, a human population (with all its inherent variabilities and susceptibilities) is being examined, and the time required to follow the population at risk and identify biological effects is lengthy (i.e., years).

That doesn't sound good.
I know. However, they do the best they can. But on the positive side, keep in mind that, at least to date, no known effects, including birth defects, at the power levels used in the workplace or household have ever been demonstrated from exposures to these radiations.

What kinds of effects are being studied?
The onset of cancer is not considered to be a concern at this point. I'll tell you why in a bit. We have heard of some scientific studies that have indicated cell phone use causes changes in brain activity, reaction times and sleep patterns. However, the WHO has stated that these effects are small and have no apparent health significance. Perhaps related to this, we have also heard of other studies, although their credibility is questionable at this time, indicating emissions from mobile phones appear to have "strange effects" on living tissue.

Strange effects? Is that it?
According to the researcher, yes. An interesting but not very scientific finding.

I'm curious about the inquiries the IEM staff receives about cell phone emissions in its "Ask A CHP" program.
Yes, we do hear from individuals who pose a question such as "Can I get headaches and other effects from using a cell phone?" Specifically, they will mention that the use of a mobile phone or a cordless phone in their home seems to result in the onset of headaches (even migraines), nausea, tingling sensations, a burning/heating sensation around the eye and ear where the phone has been resting, and sinus problems resulting in reddening of the skin and numbness in the facial area.

What else do visitors to your web site often inquire about?
We hear from folks who want to know if any damage caused by exposure to cell phone emissions is permanent and whether discontinuing use of and exposure to the phone will cause these symptoms to disappear completely. And sometimes they are also concerned about the duration of exposure that in their view causes the effects to last initially for a short period of time but after each long exposure (approximately one hour or longer) results in more noticeable symptoms which take longer to subside.

Anything else?
Well, we often hear references to the non-ionizing radiation emitted by these devices and wonder whether they can affect the human ear and if so, what portion of the ear, etc. and whether hanging a cellular phone around the neck using a necklace device is unsafe.

Ear effects?
Yes. Related to the WHO comment on reaction times, we have heard of a study conducted on human response to microwave emissions from analog or digital mobile phones. In the study, a device was clamped on the left ear of volunteers.

And what happened?
Apparently, switching the phones on or off had no effect on the ability of individuals to remember words and pictures, but when the headset was switched on, test subjects were quicker at reacting to words flashed on the screen.

Why the left ear?
We have no idea!

These kind of effects seem pretty nebulous to me.
Right you are! Unfortunately, as noted earlier, understanding the potential effects from exposures to cellular phones is in its infancy.

So what do you tell people who have all of these questions?
Regarding symptoms, we at IEM have not heard of these effects occurring from the use of mobile, cordless, or any other type of phone. From a non-carcinogenic perspective, there is no evidence that cell phones cause headaches, migraines, tingling sensations, reddening of the skin or other symptoms. Also, the power output from these devices is much too low to create problems with the sinuses.

So what could be causing these problems?
We can only surmise that it might be some other agent in the household causing these effects and by happenstance, originates at the same time as the initial use of the phone. That is why we always encourage these individuals to discuss their symptoms with their physician to be sure there is not some other underlying cause that demands treatment. In our view, it is far more likely that they are the result of some other non-radiation-related problem and not at all related to cell phone usage. As for the effect on the ear itself, that appears to be a non-issue as well, though we do not study this potential effect on any routine basis as a staff!

And the phone around the neck?
Hanging a phone around the neck should not be a radiological issue considering that, by far, the greatest non-ionizing radiation emissions occur when a person is "transmitting" (i.e., actually engaged in a call).

What about high level exposures to electromagnetic radiations?
At high exposures, we do know that radiofrequency radiations can cause such injuries as cataracts, skin burns, deep burns, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. However, most of the effects are caused by exposure to high power RF sources and heating . . . extremely rare events. Nonetheless, exposures to high power sources is a definitive problem and one where potentially life-threatening effects can occur. Cell phones, on the other hand, are designed to meet the current safety guidelines by a significant margin. With the exception of holding the phone a further distance from your head, further reductions in cell phone emissions by any other reasonable method appears remote.

Well what about all of the talk about cancer induction and leukemia?
There is no particular reason to be concerned about these possibilities because there is no replicated evidence in studies that have been performed to prove that RF can cause cancer. Even studies that have been performed using high levels of exposure do not offer incontrovertible evidence that RF radiation can cause cancer or contribute to it.

What studies?
For example, one study published in 1996 focused on 250,000 people using cell/mobile phones. They found no difference in the mortality rates between users of handheld portable phones, where the antenna was placed close to the head, and mobile cellular phones, with the antenna placed on the vehicle.

Well, that's certainly interesting.
Yes it is. This same group performed a follow-up study in 1999. There they examined specific causes of death among nearly 300,000 users of cellular phones, both handheld and mobile. They found no difference in overall cancer rates, leukemia rates, or brain cancer rates. On the other hand, there was one specific cause of death that showed a distinct correlation with the use of cell phones . . . death from motor vehicle accidents.

I've heard about the situation where a group of employees each receive a cell phone, and 'repeaters' are installed to make sure the phones get good reception. Are there any risks associated with the use of these repeaters?
A cell phone repeater is, in essence, an electronic mirror. It is designed to receive and re-transmit cell phone signals in order to expand wireless network coverage. Because they typically function in the 800 to 1500 megahertz (MHz) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, they cover the range of radiowaves to microwaves.

And the risk?
We haven't seen much information about these devices to date. Therefore, if someone has an interest in them, we typically refer them to the manufacturer's information about the specific device(s), which should not only contain the operating frequencies, but the impacts of those frequencies on people in close proximity to them, and compliance with applicable regulations for those frequencies. However, as with almost every form of electromagnetic radiation, increasing the distance between you and the source of the radiation reduces the exposure. Thus your non-ionizing radiation exposure from the cell phone that you will be using will likely exceed any exposure from the farther-away repeaters by a great deal. Unless your physical proximity to a transmitting cell phone or repeater is quite close, your exposure to the non-ionizing radiation being emitted from the device is probably trivial, at best.

I have a relative with an implanted cardiac pacemaker. What thoughts do you have on the interaction of cell phones and these devices?
Pacemakers are designed to help the heart maintain a rhythm while pumping blood to the rest of the body. The pacemaker accomplishes this very important task using electrical pulses to stimulate the heart muscles. Therefore, any device that generates electrical signals or creates a magnetic field may interfere with the signal from the pacemaker and consequently the heart's ability to pump blood efficiently.

Have any improvements been made in this area?
Definitely! In recent years, manufacturers of pacemakers have done a better job of shielding the pacemaker and consequently making it less susceptible to changes in the electrical signal. However, there is a possibility that interference may occur from powerful sources, like strong magnets or electrical transmitters.

Do you know of any internet material on cell phones and pacemakers that I could review?
Our search uncovered a particular web page related to the heart. If you go to http://www.heartcenteronline.com, you can read more about the effects of cell phones on pacemakers. There you will learn that while there are some conditions that may interfere with the function of a pacemaker, the advantages of this device far outweigh any disadvantages. And as we discussed a bit ago, there are simple precautions that can maintain any problematic conditions to a practical minimum.

Who is responsible for cellular phone safety in this country?
In the United States, both the federal government and state agencies have that responsibility.

Which ones?
On the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are the primary agencies. There are also a number of state agencies responsible for radiofrequency (RF) safety that work on the behalf of the general public on the issues of radiation-related health effects.

And are there safety guidelines for manufacturers and regulators to follow?
Yes there are. Several national and international organizations provide guidelines in this area, including antenna siting and construction. For example, American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) are all big contributors.

Should children use cell phones?
As far as children are concerned, parents have to assist in making that decision. While there is no evidence that cell phone usage by children will result in any harm, we can certainly understand the uncertainty parents might face. Therefore, if removing the phone would offer "peace of mind", we would suggest parents take that action. However, be aware that such action is not based on any scientific findings that offer definite proof that health risks exist with these devices. Once again, no credible scientific evidence of harm associated with cordless phones exists at this time.

Where can I go to study up some more on non-ionizing radiation and cellular phones in particular?
There is a lot of information out there. May we suggest first some internet sites to assist you in expanding your knowledge base. For starters, check out http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf, a site maintained by the Idaho State University. This site contains an extensive amount of radiation-related information. Once at the site, click on "Information on Specific Radiation Sources". This will take you to the non-ionizing sources. There you will find several links to cellular phone issues. In particular, one of the links offers frequently asked questions (FAQs) about cell phone base antennas and human health which you should find to be valuable. The actual web site for this reference is http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html. Additionally, a FAQ link to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also available at the ISU web site.

Okay. Where else can I go?
Well, don't forget to visit IEM's "Radioactivity Basics" and "Links" sections for a host of information on both non-ionizing and ionizing radiation sources. For example, the "Links" section includes contact information for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. This organization performed research and study in the areas of electromagnetic radiation and its effects on humans. You might also want to visit the "Federal Regulatory Agencies" category at the IEM site, to a link to the FDA's web site (i.e., http://www.fda.gov). There you can access not only the regulatory and control guidance, but the results of health effects research. The FCC and OSHA websites can be accessed at http://www.fcc.gov and http://www.osha.gov, respectively.

That sounds great. Any more internet sources?
It would be a worthwhile venture to contact the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the United Kingdom, which provides independent advice on the risks to health from radiations of all types. However, this agency has been doing a lot of work in the potential health implications of mobile phone usage. The NRPB maintains a website at http://www.nrpb.org.uk. And there is a very interesting paper by Dr. Linda S. Erdreich entitled "Why Do Cellular Antennas Cause Health Anxiety?" that is definitely worth checking out. You can find it at the following link: http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/erdreich.htm.

What about some non-internet sources?
There are loads. The following references can be obtained at any college or university library: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 96, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 119, "A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields"; CRC Press, Inc., (Charles Polk, ed.), "CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields"; and Battelle Press, (Bary Wilson, ed.), "Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: The Question of Cancer".

Great. Any other resources you know of?
Absolutely. It is always worth your while to contact your local public health department. Representatives of this agency can give you information specific to cell phone and associated (e.g., antenna) emissions in your neighborhood, and can give you information about the specific radiations being emitted, their penetrating ability, and a host of other radiological and safety-related information.

Okay. I'll be keeping my eye on the cellular phone issue.
So will we, as we are certain there will be even more information coming our way as time passes. In the meantime, we sure hope you will refrain from using your own cell phone while you are driving your car.

Yes, I certainly will.
Excellent!

IEM - Consulting and Services for Today's Business Climate