Skip to main content

Cell Phone Safety

When my parents gave me a cell phone in 1997, I was skeptical. Whether it was because I'm slow to accept change, skeptical of things I don't understand, I heard about the risks, or for all of these reasons, I didn't embrace the technology easily. I would use my new phone sparingly. Since then, there have been numerous studies about the safety and dangers of cell phone use, whether from radiation exposure or from distracted walking and driving. My students this week debate on this issue. Here is some of what I found:

Researchers in a 2008 Ohio State University study compared pedestrians who walked with no technology, those who walked while listening to i-pods, and those who walked while talking on cell phones. They found that those who walked while talking on cell phones were more likely to walk into oncoming traffic than the other two groups (1). More recently, computer science researchers at Dartmouth University and the University of Bologna created an Android smartphone application that uses the camera on the back of a phone to detect oncoming vehicles. The application then warns the cell phone user with sound and vibrations coming from the phone that the vehicle is coming (2).

After reading many studies about the safety of cell phones, thirty-one scientists from the World Health Organization in 2011 concluded that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic [cancer-causing] to humans.” An author from WHO reporting on this study reported, however, that "results of animals studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields" (3).

The closer the cell phone is to the human head, the more the person is exposed to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. A phone produces more RF radiation when there is a weak signal—and when in a moving vehicle-- because it must work harder to establish a connection. Finally, a “radiation shield” on the phone may actually cause the phone to produce more radiation to connect with other phones, and children are more vulnerable to this radiation compared to adults because their skulls and scalps are thinner and possible because their brain cells divide more quickly compared to adults (4).

Cell phones and other electronic devices have been known to interfere with navigation during airline flights. Specifically, a 2003 NASA study found that cell phone connections could produce emissions that could interfere with an airplane’s navigation (GPS) system. This is used to help a pilot land an airplane, especially when the pilot cannot see the runway because of clouds or other weather conditions (5).
 
Airlines already do not allow cell phones to be used on flights because they can interfere with the plane’s navigation instruments, but research from 2003 suggests that passengers break this rule (5). Airlines are under pressure to allow cell phones in flight because travelers—especially business travelers—want to stay connected to clients and coworkers, family, and others.

1. Nasar, Jack, Hecht, Peter and Richard Wener. “Mobile Telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 69-75. Web. 11 May 2012.
2. Wang, Tianyu, Cardone, Giuseppe and Antonio Corradi. “WalkSafe: A Pedestrian Safety App for Mobile Phone Users Who Walk and Talk While Crossing Roads.” Hanover, NH and Bologna, Italy: Dartmouth College and the University of Bologna, 2012. Web. 11 May 2012.
3. “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Mobile Phones.” The World Health Organization. June 2011. Web. 12 May 2012.
4. “Cell Phone Safety Fact Sheet.” Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine. June 2011. Web. 12 May 2012.
5. Strauss, Bill, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, and Daniel D. Stancil. “Unsafe at Any Airspeed?” Carnegie Mellon University, 2006. Web. 12 May 2012.

Comments

  1. I think the joy that we don't always understand goes right along with the "peace that transcends all understanding". Phillipians 4:7 ~

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Savior

This wasteland cold and dark runs free Its fearful creatures speak to me One fateful day one nudged my hand To set my eyes upon a tree He knew I could not understand For I was in his native land His signs became our common speech To lead me through the deadly sand Now stuck I saw him me beseech He could not lift me out to reach The firm foundation of a cave Outside the boundaries of this beach Withal, the beast became more brave To risk his own my life to save To carry me, its life it gave To carry me, its life it gave. This poem was inspired by Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." That poem, like this one, has four four-line stanzas of eight syllables per stanza. Its rhyme scheme is AABA BBCB CCDC DDDD.

Soul and Spirit

As a friend told me about a conversation she had with one of our pastors about whether animals go to heaven, she told me about the Hebrew word nephesh ("soul"). I wondered, then, what the difference was between soul and spirit. After a little research, I came across what many seem to agree is a main difference. The soul of a person is that person's being--personality and life--while the spirit is that part of us that connects with God. There are several verses that refer to spirit in this way:* "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:1) "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly p...

Evil, According to Republicans and Democrats

Please note that the following thoughts are only my observations. Please consider the evidence you see in the behavior of both parties for yourself. In our politically polarized climate, I was thinking about how Democrats and Republicans are different, and where those differences come from. Democrats seem to place more hope in institutions, and seek to reform those institutions when there is something wrong in society. Hence, there is more willingness to levy taxes to offer more social services as a support to those with less than others. They see the state as a way to equalize society. Thus, evil, to Democrats, seems to be a social issue: if there is a problem in society--poverty, racism, climate change, etc.--it is a problem with the structure of society and must be addressed as such: repair the system, and you will solve the problem. They are generally accepting of a larger state bureaucracy because they believe that increased accountability within a state structure will prevent evi...