Mobile Phones, the latest in microwave technology

With the increasing number of portable telephones and the sophisticated array of functions, I am starting to believe the health risks involved with a portable device that emits radiation  has been covered up.
A mobile phone device is really a sophisticated two way radio, It s a full duplex radio, meaning that it uses one frequency to listen and another frequency for talking. Unlike a half duplex CB radio to pause in-between talking and listening, a mobil phone would allow both functions like a land line phone.

The phone would also need 1,664 channels or more, a typical frequency range of a mobile phone is 700 MHz to 1.4 Ghz for GSM to 3G devices. Though the next generation of phone would be using 4G with frequencies reaching 2.7 Ghz which is a few mega hertz away from the classification of microwave frequency.
In a typical analog cell-phone system in the United States, the cell-phone carrier receives about 800 frequencies to use across the city. The carrier chops up the city into cells. Each cell is typically sized at about 10 square miles (26 square kilometers). Cells are normally thought of as hexagons on a big hexagonal grid, like this:

Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts

One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight.
exposure of 2–3 hours duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at Specific Absorption Rate values from 100-140W/kg, As far as we know, there is no problem with the radio frequencies used to send out analogue radio signals, but more and more research is showing that pulsed digital frequencies can have non-thermal effects on living organisms.


Professor Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro Sweden, told the conference – held at the Royal Society by the Radiation Research Trust – that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma", a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher.

Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness. By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.

The research has shown that adults who have used the handsets for more than 10 years are much more likely to get gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but he said that there was not enough data to show how such relatively long-term use would increase the risk for those who had started young.

In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".
Children are certainly more susceptible because they are still growing and their neural circuitry will not be fully formed until they reach their early twenties. Until then, they need protection from anything that could interfere with their brain’s development.

Penetration of cell phone radiation into human skull 835 MHz Pin = 600 mW

  5 yearoldadult brain10year old

Electromagnetic Radiation, and especially its impact on the immune system, behaviour, childhood cancers, breast cancer, and brain tumours. This is an epic piece of work, the summary alone runs to 28 pages, which concludes that some effects can be shown from existing research and that further research is needed, but until then the safety standards for exposure need to be revised downwards. In other words, it would be prudent to adopt the precautionary principle, and there are other independent scientists and doctors who are also urging caution.