- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Radio Frequency Effects in Biological Tissues
- •26.2.1 General Tissue Properties
- •26.2.2 Limitations of Animal Models
- •26.2.3 Measurement Techniques
- •26.2.4 Measurement Probes for Human Exposure Assessment
- •26.2.5 Practical Measurements of Radio Frequency Absorption
- •26.2.6 European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization Phantom
- •26.3 Health Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation
- •26.3.1 Thermal and Nonthermal
- •26.3.2 In vitro Research
- •26.3.3 In vivo Research
- •26.3.4 Effects on DNA
- •26.3.5 Epidemiology
- •26.3.6 Cognitive Effects
- •26.3.6.1 In Animals
- •26.3.6.2 In Humans
- •26.4 Other Safety Issues
- •26.4.1 Interaction with Safety Critical Equipment
- •26.4.2 Driving
- •26.5 Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Radiation
- •26.5.1 NRPB
- •26.5.2 ICNIRP
- •26.5.3 United States, Canada, and Australasia
- •26.6 Recent Reviews
- •26.7 Conclusions
- •References
26
Safety Aspects of Radio Frequency Effects in Humans from Communication Devices
26.1Introduction
26.2Radio Frequency Effects in Biological Tissues
General Tissue Properties • Limitations of Animal Models •
Measurement Techniques • Measurement Probes for
Human Exposure Assessment • Practical Measurements of
Radio Frequency Absorption • European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization Phantom
26.3Health Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation
Thermal and Nonthermal • In vitro Research • In vivo
Research • Effects on DNA • Epidemiology • Cognitive
Effects
26.4Other Safety Issues
Interaction with Safety Critical Equipment • Driving
|
26.5 |
Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency |
|
|
|
Radiation |
|
Alan W. Preece |
|
NRPB • ICNIRP • United States, Canada, and Australasia |
|
26.6 |
Recent Reviews |
||
Medical Physics University |
|||
Research Centre |
26.7 |
Conclusions |
26.1 Introduction
The spectacular increase in personal communication systems could hardly have been predicted. In excess of 50 million mobile phones is a number that will continue to increase if the pattern in Finland (currently the world leader in proportion of the population with a mobile phone at about 72% in 2000) is an example. It is only the ingenuity of the manufacturers and network providers in providing cheap units, effective use of radio spectrum, and wide coverage that will determine the pace of increase. The public seems to have taken to a “keeping in touch” approach. However, accompanying this new communication increase is a media-driven anxiety about possible adverse health effects in the areas of cancer, cerebrovascular accidents (stroke), eye and memory damage from handset use, along with similar worries about base stations. In 2000, there were some 22,000 masts in the United Kingdom alone, many sited on schools and in areas of high population density. Additional safety concerns are associated with phone use while
© 2002 by CRC Press LLC