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. Kara LeAnnMay 13, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    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

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to ...
2 comments
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to ...
2 comments
Read more