Mobile technology: the global risk experiment

D. S. Hickey, A. S. Atkins, AK Hairul Nizam Pengiran Haji Ali

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology, Octagon, Staffordshire University, Beaconside, Stafford, ST16 9DG,
England. (email s.hickey@staffs.ac.uk,a.s.atkins@staffs.ac.uk, a.penigran-hajialis@staffs.ac.uk)

Abstract – The rapid expansion of wireless technology is

proceeding without complete knowledge of the underlying heath
effects. Safety considerations suggest that individuals and
organisations control exposure to RF emissions. This paper
briefly describes some health concerns and practical methods to
minimise exposure.

I INTRODUCTION
Mobile technology offers a new platform of wireless
communication and data transfer that supports both the
changing lifestyle and commercial activities of modern day
society. Mobile phones and wireless technology such as
Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) and Worldwide Interoperability for
Microwave Access (WiMax) are generating new
technological developments including applications in e-
commerce and m-commerce. Consequently, mobile
companies are promoting the use of mobile broadband
systems to introduce mobile television, multimedia, games, Fig 1. A graphical representation of the spatial range and frequencies
and online commerce using mobile phones. used in mobile applications [6].

Health and safety issues are of increasing concern, such as the
effects of Radiofrequency (RF) radiation that mobile devices
emit during data transfer. Mobile phone users are exposed to
carrier frequency wavelengths of around 2 Gigahertz (Ghz)
and an associated modulation wave encoding the data.
Exposure to such emitted radio frequencies can generate a
thermal or heating effect within the tissues especially those of
the head. The potential for deleterious health effects [1] from
heating and induced currents has led to the suggestion that
prolonged use of mobile phones and similar RF based
technologies could cause cancer [2][3]. Even if the direct
thermal effect were small, associated mechanisms such as
induction of heat shock proteins may provide a pathological
mechanism [4]. There is currently an increasing exposure to
radio frequencies associated with the introduction of base
station transmitters, (cellular and WiMax base stations) in
urban areas, Wi-fi hotspots in cafes, and particularly the
rapidly increasing number of mobile phone users. Fig 1
provides a graphical indication of the relative strength and
area of exposure of the different modalities. Addressing both
the direct and indirect [5] health effects associated with
increasing RF exposure is therefore essential to ensure the
safety of the exposed population in a mobile technology
environment.
II SOURCES OF RF EXPOSURE
Mobile Phone Handsets
Users of mobile phone handsets can receive a larger RF peak
exposure than people living close to a cellular phone base
station. With technological progress, the number of RF active
components carried by a person is increasing, as devices are
incorporated into clothing and other accessories. Biological
considerations suggest that the carrier frequency should be
considered separately from the effect of the encoding
frequency distribution [7][8][9]. However, the handset
transmits RF energy only when a call is being made or
infrequently to link to local base stations, whereas base
stations are continuously transmitting signals.
Mobile phones are low-powered RF transmitters, emitting
maximum signal strength typically in the range of 0.2 to 0.6
watts. Other hand-held radio transmitters may emit 10 watts
or more. Since the RF field strength decays with an inverse
square law, the exposure rapidly decreases with distance from
the transmitter. A mobile phone close to, or touching, the head
generates more RF heating than one held a short distance
away. Similarly, the RF exposure of subjects standing nearby
is usually considered negligible.

A particular factor relating to RF expose from mobile phones

is the Specific-energy Absorption Rate (SAR). The specific
absorption rate is a measure of the energy absorbed in the
head or body of the user [10]. The absorbed energy depends
upon the design of the phone in addition to its power output.
Maximum temperature increases reported in the ear can vary
from about 0.22°C to 0.43°C [11]. The corresponding
temperature increase in the brain varies from about 0.08°C to
0.19°C. These steady-state temperatures are measured
following approximately 50 min of direct exposure. Finally,
the reported maximum temperature in the external part of the
brain is an increase of from 0.10°C to 0.16°C proportional to
each 1 W/kg of SAR per gram of brain tissue .
Non-thermal effects reported include DNA strand breakage in
cultured human diploid fibroblasts and cultured rat granulosa
cells [12]. RF exposure at 1800 MHz and SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg
induced DNA single- and double-strand breaks. Breaks
occurred after 16 hour exposure in both cell types and at
different mobile-phone RF modulations. Since intermittent
exposure produced a stronger response than continuous
exposure, the induced DNA damage is not directly related to
thermal effects.
Attempts to minimise RF esposure from handsets has
produced a range of shielding devices [13]. However, current
evidence suggest small shielding devices are ineffective
[14][15]. People considering the use of shielding technology
might be advised to ensure that the reduction is signal strength
and SAR has been verified by direct measurement.
Base Station Emissions
The UK Independent Expert Committee on RF emissions
concluded, in 2000, that there was no general risk to the
health of people living near base stations as the expected
exposures were low [16]. They included a caveat that indirect
adverse effects might occur in some sensitive individuals.
Mobile phone base stations transmission levels vary with the
size of the cell over which they operate; power levels range
from a few watts to more than 100 watts. Typical base station
antennae are mounted 15 to 50 metres above the ground and
are about a metre long and 20-30 cm in width. The beam
emitted by a base station is intentionally broad in the
horizontal direction to maximise signal coverage. However,
base stations typically produce RF beams that are tightly
constrained in the vertical direction, as illustrated in Fig 2.
This constrained beam means that the RF signal over the
ground near to the base station is low. As the beam expands in
the vertical direction, the RF field intensity at ground level
increases slightly with the distance from the base station and
more of the beam hits the ground. As the distance from the
base station increases further, the signal strength decreases
consistent with the inverse square law of RF emissions. The
design of the RF beam thus limits the maximum RF exposure
from the base station’s signal while giving a large area of
signal coverage.
Fig 2. Graphical representation of the vertical beam from a base
station mast. Note that the area close to the antenna is outside the
main beam.
There are three types of base station considered: macrocells,
microcells and picocells. Macrocells provide the core of the
base station network and have power outputs measured in tens
of watts. They can communicate directly with phones over a
35 kilometres radius. By the year 2000, there were
approximately 20,000 macrocells in the UK and the number
of transmitters was increasing. The available measurements
suggest that direct exposures of the UK population to RF
carrier waves from macrocell transmitters are far lower than
existing exposure guidelines [16]. However, some macrocell
base stations may produce higher than normal RF emissions
and the exposure to the population is expected to increase
with time.
Smaller microcell base stations are used to fill gaps in the
main (macrocell) network. Microcell base stations have a
lesser power output than macrocells and cover a radius of a
few hundred metres. They are also placed in areas with a high
volume of transmissions and can be used to address the
problem of areas with low signal penetration from macrocell
base stations. Microcells are often placed on public buildings
including airports, schools and shopping complexes. It is
claimed that microcell emissions of RF carrier waves are
within the current safety guidelines provided the outer
shielding case is intact.[16] Picocell base stations have an RF
output of a few watts and are often contained within
buildings.
The RF signal can be measured using power metres, while
spectrum analysers estimate the signal strength at a range of
frequencies [17][18]. RF measurement equipment is widely
available and in many areas may be hired more effectively
than purchased when required for limited or brief studies.
Note that the measurement should include estimation of the
peak data transfer levels as well as the power of the carrier
frequency.
III RF EMISSIONS
Mobile phones and other electronic devices emit a range of
radiofrequencies, as illustrated in Fig 3. On standby, the RF
emissions are low. The carrier wave used to transmit
information during communication is in the region of 1-3
GHz. GSM mobile phones use frequencies around 0.8–0.9
GHz and 1.83 GHz, while Bluetooth and General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS) mobile carrier waves are
approximately 2.45 GHz. Wireless network systems
compatible with both the IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g
standards use frequencies around 2.4 GHz. Higher frequencies
of 3 GHz and above are utilised by 3G phone technologies.
Frequencies from 5.15-5.875 GHz are used for IEEE 802.11a,
Wi-fi and cordless phone technologies. Within these ranges,
each network operator has a specific radio frequency band
allocation.
Fig 3. A diagram illustrating devices and their approximate
frequency range [6].
Microwaves heat biological tissues over a range of
frequencies. The microwave frequency range is separated
arbitrarily into ultra-high frequency (UHF) signals from 0.3–3
GHz, super high frequency (SHF) signals from 3 to 30 GHz,
and extremely high frequency (EHF) signals from 30 to 300
GHz.
Microwave ovens operate by depositing microwave radiation
at frequencies are similar to those used in mobile
communications. Household microwaves typically use a
frequency around 2.45 GHz which is deposited into biological
tissues (food) to produce local heating. Some large industrial
microwave heating systems operating around 0.9 GHz range.
Water and many other small biological molecules are electric
dipoles containing separated electrical charges, which absorb
microwave energy by dielectric heating. Dielectric heating
arises when the alternating RF wave rotates polar molecules,
such as H2O. The molecule rotates to align with the
alternating electric field induced by the microwave signal.
The result is a molecular movement and jiggling as molecules
interact with the induced motion. Heating by microwave
radiation is efficient in water, which consists of a small
molecule with a significant dipole. Since the human body’s
soft tissue contains up to 70% water [19] it is potentially
subject to RF heating effects.
IV RF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The potential for tissue heating by RF radiation has been a
cause of some popular concern [20] However, non-thermal
effects can induce biological changes and also present
potential safety considerations [9]. Moreover, such non-
thermal effects are not considered in setting government
guidelines. Several non-thermal biological effects have been
described [21][22] and could be explained by changes in
protein conformation as a response to transient heat shock
with pulsed radiation [23]. Research in this area has been
influenced by research into the potential use of RF weapons in
the later half of the 20th century. Russian reports suggest that
chronic RF exposure, below 10 mW/cm and even below 1
mW/cm, can have damaging health effects but the published
experiments do not follow accepted practice for research in
the west [24]. Animal experiments suggest that pulsed
microwave radiation (plane-wave fields of 900 MHz with a
pulse repetition frequency of 217 Hz and a pulse width of 0.6
ms) can induce lymphoma in susceptible mice. The incident
power densities were 2.6-13 W/M2 with specific absorption
rates of 0.008-4.2 W/kg (averaging 0.13-1.4 W/kg) [25].
However, other studies show no tumorigenic effects [26][27]
and a lack of a behavioural response in rodents to pulsed
microwaves [28].
There is a measurable physiological response in humans to
applied RF radiofrequency fields, which varies with the
frequency and field strength [29][30][31]. In particular, low
frequency and pulse modulated RF radiation is associated
with biological effects [32][33][34]. These pulsed frequencies
correspond to the data transmission signal in mobile
communications rather than the carrier frequency. They also
suggest that mobile phone emissions may be of greater health
significance than those from base stations [35], as the
exposure is greater. Slowing of heart rate, alternations in the
latency and amplitude of event-related electroencephalogram
(EEG) brain measures, occurred subjects exposed to a (9
kV/M, 20 µT) radiofrequency field. Some subpopulations,
such as those suffering from migraines or epilepsy, may be
particularly susceptible to effects on brain blood flow and
EEG. However, full data on susceptible population subgroups
are not currently available.
A range of biological organisms including humans are
sensitive to brief exposures to low frequency electric fields
[36]. Indeed the US Air Force has a patent for inducing
subjective sound and voice signals encoded in RF signals
[37]. With acoustic noise around 80 db, a peak RF power
density of approximately 275 mW/ cm2 is required to induce
the perception of sound at carrier frequencies of 425 MHz and
1,310 MHz [38]. The average power density can be at least as
low as 400 µW/cm2. The evidence for the various possible
sites for the corresponding electromagnetic energy sensor
suggests the location is not peripheral to the cochlea. This
microwave hearing effect, also known as the Frey effect,
appears to act by setting up a thermo-elastic wave of acoustic
pressure which is transmitted to the cochlear [39].
Guidelines
Government guidelines on RF exposure are available but are
currently based on limited information. The UK Government
has national guidelines determined by the National
Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), in 1993, on the
maximum permissible levels of exposure to RF radiation [7].
In 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) provided guidelines for
permissible exposure to RF radiation. In 1999, year the
ICNIRP guidelines were included in a European Council
Recommendation. Both the ICNIRP and NRP guidelines were
based on the same core evidence. The degree of uncertainty is
illustrated by the maximum exposure levels determined by the
ICNIRP are approximately five times lower than those
recommended for employees. This more conservative
estimate derives from the potential that the population might
contain subjects who are particularly sensitive to the effects of
RF radiation. Moreover, by the year 2000, it was clear that
exposures below these guidelines may produce biological
effects [16].
Precautionary approach
The approach towards RF emission safety is generally
accepted to be guided by the precautionary principle.
However, use of the precautionary principle in this context
requires care if an unbiased assessment is to be provided [40].
The precautionary principle is that, in the absence of a
scientific consensus, if an action may cause severe or
irreversible harm to the population the burden of proof for the
acceptability of the action lies with the proponents. While
strict adherence to the precautionary principle is too
restrictive, a full risk assessment is also impractical. Risk
assessment implies quantifying the adverse consequences and
associated probabilities across the range of possible
frequencies and pulsed emissions convolved with the range of
potential biological effects. A full quantitative assessment of
risk [41] is therefore impractical and the population is
currently engaged in a long-term experiment, in which the
risk will be assessed post hoc.
V DISCUSSION
The accumulating risks to an individual may be correlated
with the increasing frequency and duration of mobile phone
use resulting in prolonged exposure. This may be of particular
concern in peripatetic occupations requiring a high level of
communication, including mobile conferences and similar
activities. Young people, who may be more sensitive to
adverse effects, have been a particular concern, such as with
the potential for high data transfer rates in mobile and
wireless networking in schools [42].
The perceived precision in reports of dangers from mobile
phones is correlated with belief irrespective of the underlying
facts [43]. Other reported risks include answering a call while
fuelling a car at a gas station. This myth suggests that
answering a call in the presence of gas fumes will create a
spark. However, the originating reports [44][45] are currently
unverified and the associated risk is small. There are
anecdotal reports of mobile phone batteries being hazardous,
for example a Chinese worker in the iron ore industry
reportedly died from an explosion of his mobile phone [46].
The cause of the explosion was claimed to result from the use
of a counterfeit version of the mobile phone’s battery. The
exposure to the heat from the iron ore supposedly caused
chemical, or extra thermal, heating to the counterfeit battery
causing it to explode. A fragment of the mobile phone
reportedly pierced into the victims heart when the mobile
phone exploded in his breast pocket [46].
Usability and Wearable Technologies
Some forms of direct physical stress and strain can develop
while using these mobile devices. These stresses include a
form of repetitive strain injury (thumb strain) when
manipulating a mobile, because of the un-ergonomic design of
the buttons [47]. Additional design considerations include the
small screens used in mobile phones, which can produce
eyestrain, depending whether the individual is myopic or
long-sighted. Consumers often complain about the screen size
and light glare, which can make the screen difficult to see. In
response, improvements in some newer phones relieve the
users stress and provide ergonomic accessories for mobile
devices to increase the customers comfort [48]. For
visualisation the screens are backlit, screen size is increased
and keypad spacing has sometimes increased. Other
improvements include rubber grips and side scrolling to make
users feel more at ease with their phones. Some of these
accessories, shown in Fig 4, have been implemented to
improve usability such as Bluetooth connected keyboard and
virtual infra-red keyboard.
Virtual Keyboard Portable Virtual Keyboard
Fig 4. Examples of wireless connected equipment are illustrated.
Note that the range and quantity of such devices is increasing
rapidly.
Wearable technologies, as the name suggests, are mobile
devices or mobile technology that is implemented into
clothing or accessories [49][50]. In Fig 5, mobile
communication systems built into clothing of the user are
illustrated. These items are already available in the market
and the use of such systems is expected to increase with time.

Wearable Technology Jacket Sunglasses+ Mp3 player
VI CONCLUSIONS
Microwave frequencies emitted from base stations and radio
frequencies that are found in mobile devices can trigger
biological effects. These effects may produce pathology,
especially in some susceptible members of the population.
Currently, there is insufficient information to validate the safe
levels of such exposure. Moreover, even quantifying the RF
frequency exposure for epidemiological investigations can
present difficulties in measurement [51].
The biological effects most studied are those arising from
induction of thermal stress in the tissues. Other biological
effects have been noted, but it is currently uncertain how these
will influence the health of susceptible members of the
population.
The location and arrangement of transmitter stations can be
selected to minimise population exposure while enabling
mobile communications. For this to be achieved a knowledge
of the beam characteristics of the station is required.
Moreover, the positioning can be checked by direct RF
measurement using power meters or spectrum analysers. Care
is needed to allow for several RF sources in the same location.
People who may be particularly susceptible, such as epileptics
and migraineurs to changes in EEG or cerebral blood flow
should minimise their exposure. Those people who are
engaged in activities where mobile communication has
become essential can also reduce their exposure by taking
preventative action. This can be achieved by
• Use of wearable technology such as Bluetooth
• Reducing close contact with the mobile devices
physically (for example don’t sleep with your mobile
phone)
• Placing the receiver a distance from the most
susceptible tissues, which are believed to be in the
head or gonads.
• Use of devices with RF shielding
• Using wireless headsets on the road
• Avoiding systems with a high RF output
• Measuring individual exposure levels
Until we learn the full biological, behavioural and medical
implications of massive exposure to RF emissions, taking
simple steps to minimise RF exposure is recommended.
References
1 Health Council of the Netherlands (2002) Mobile
telephones: an evaluation of health effects., The Hague.
2 Graham-Rowe D. (2002) New mobile phone cancer link,
New Scientist News Service, 19 June.
3 Repacholi M.H. (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile
phones, Toxicol Lett, 120(1-3), 323-331.
4 French PW, Penny R, Laurence JA, McKenzie DR. (2001)
Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer,
Differentiation, 67(4-5), 93-97.
5 Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), 2001,
‘The Risk of Using a Mobile Phone While Driving’,
Transport Local Government Regions (DTLR), pp. 1-34
6 Haji Ali A.H.N.P. (2007) Mobile Business Application
framework, MRes Thesis, Staffordshire University, England.
7 National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (2003) Biological effects of modulated
radiofrequency fields (NCRP commentary No. 18)., Bethesda,
MD.
8 Foster K.R. Repacholi M. (2004) Biological effects of
radiofrequency fields: Does modulation matter? Rad Res
162:219-225.
9 Hyland G.J. (2000) Physics and biology of mobile
telephony, Lancet, 356(9244), 1833-1836.
10 Anderson V. Joyner K.H. (1995) Specific absorption rate
levels measured in a phantom head exposed to radio
frequency transmissions from analog hand-held mobile
phones, Bioelectromagnetics, 16(1), 60-69.
11 Bernardi P. Cavagnaro M. Pisa S. Piuzzi E. (2000)
Specific absorption rate and temperature increases in the head
of a cellular-phone user, IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques, 48(7), Part 1, 1118-1126.
12 Diema E. Schwarza C. Adlkoferb F. Jahna O. Rüdigera H.
(2005) Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone
radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in
transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro, Mutation
Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental
Mutagenesis
583(2), 178-183.
13 Halttunen M. Korhonen P. (1997) Radio telephone with
compliant shield and method, US Patent number: 5603103.
14 Oliver J.P. Chou C.K. Balzano Q. (2003) Testing the
effectiveness of small radiation shields for mobile phones,
Bioelectromagnetics, 24(1), 66-69.
15 Fung L.C. Leung S.W. Chan K.H. (2003) Experimental
study of SAR reduction on commercial products and shielding
materials in mobile phone applications, Microwave and
optical technology letters, 36(6), 419-422.
16 IEGMP (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile
Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, National Radiological
Protection Board (UK).
17 Carr J. (1999) Practical Radio Frequency Test and
Measurement: A Technician's Handbook, Newnes (Elsevier).
18 Fantom A. (1990) Radio Frequency and Microwave Power
Measurement, IEE Electrical Measurement Series, 7.
19 Goldstein A. Aronow L. Kalman S.M. (1974) Principles of
Drug Action,J Wiley & Sons, New York.
20 WHO (2000) Electromagnetic fields and public health:
mobile telephones and their base stations, Fact sheet N°193,
June.
21 Leszczynski D. Joenväärä S. Reivinen J. Kuokka R. (2002)
Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress
pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial
cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain
barrier-related effects, Differentiation, 70(2-3), 120-129.
22 Verschaeve L. Maes A. (1998) Genetic, carcinogenic and
teratogenic effects of radiofrequency fields, Mutat Res,
410(2), 141-165.
23 Laurence J.A. French P.W. Lindner R.A. Mckenzie D.R.
(2000) Biological effects of electromagnetic fields--
mechanisms for the effects of pulsed microwave radiation on
protein conformation, J Theor Biol, 206(2), 291-298.
24 Mcree D.I. (1980) Soviet and eastern European research
on biological effects of microwave radiation, Proceedings of
the IEEE, 68(1), 84- 91.
25 Repacholi M.H. Basten A. Gebski V. Noonan D. Finnie J.
Harris A.W. (1997) Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic
mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHZ electromagnetic fields,
Radiat Res, 147(5), 631-640.
26 Santini R. Hosni M. Deschaux P. Pacheco H. (1988) B16
melanoma development in black mice exposed to low-level
microwave radiation, Bioelectromagnetics, 9(1), 105-107.
27 Heikkinen P. Kosma V.M. Hongisto T. Huuskonen H.
Hyysalo P. Komulainen H. Kumlin T. Lahtinen T. Lang S.
Puranen L. Juutilainen J. (2001) Effects of mobile phone
radiation on X-ray-induced tumorigenesis in mice, Radiat
Res, 156(6). 775-785.
Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Hongisto T, Huuskonen H,
Hyysalo P, Komulainen H, Kumlin T, Lahtinen T, Lang S,
Puranen L, Juutilainen J.
28 Sienkiewicz Z.J. Blackwell R.P. Haylock R.G.E Saunders
R.D. Cobb B.L. (2000) Low-level exposure to pulsed 900
MHz microwave radiation does not cause deficits in the
performance of a spatial learning task in mice,
Bioelectromagnetics. 21(3), 151-158.
29 Graham C. Cook M.R. Cohen H.D. Gerkovich M.M.
(1994) Dose response study of human exposure to 60 Hz
electric and magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics, 15(5), 447-
463.
30 Hossmann K.A. Hermann D.M. (2003) Effects of
electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central
nervous system, Bioelectromagnetics, 24(1), 49-62.
31 Hamblin D.L. Wood A.W. (2002) Effects of mobile phone
emissions on human brain activity and sleep variables, Int J
Radiat Biol, 78(8), 659-669.
32 Huber R. Treyer V. Borbély A.A. Schuderer J. Gottselig
J.M. Landolt H.P. Werth E. Berthold T. Kuster N. Buck A.
Achermann P. (2002) Electromagnetic fields, such as those
from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and
sleep and waking EEG, J Sleep Res, 11(4), 289-295.
33 Borbély A.A. Huber R. Graf T. Fuchs B. Gallmann E.
Achermann P. (1999) Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram,
Neurosci Lett, 275(3), 207-210.
34 Huber R. Graf T. Cote K.A. Wittmann L. Gallmann E.
Matter D. Schuderer J. Kuster N. Borbély A.A. Achermann P.
(2000) Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
field during waking affects human sleep EEG, Neuroreport,
11(15), 3321-3325.
35 Huber R. Treyer V. Schuderer J. Berthold T. Buck A.
Kuster N. Landolt H.P. Achermann P. (2005) Exposure to
pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields
affects regional cerebral blood flow, Eur J Neurosci, 21(4),
1000-1006.
36 Marino A.A. Becker R.O. (1977) Biological effects of
extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a
review, Physiol Chem Phys, 9(2), 131-147.
37 O'Loughlin J.P. Loree D.L. (2002) Apparatus for audibly
communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing
effect, United States Patent 6587729, Assignee: The United
States of America represented by the Secretary of the Air
Force, Washington, DC.
38 Frey A.H. (1962) Human auditory system response to
modulated electromagnetic energy, J Appl Physiol, 17, 689-
692.
39 Lin J.C. Wang Z. (2007) Hearing of microwave pulses by
humans and animals: effects, mechanisms and thresholds,
Health Physics, The Radiation Safety Journal, 92(6):621-628.
40 Lin J.C. (2001) The precautionary principle: a rose by
another name [cellular radiohealth effects], Antennas and
Propagation Magazine, IEEE, 43(2), 129-131.
41 Byrd D.M. Cothern C.R. (2000) Introduction to Risk
Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Science-Based Decision
Making, Government Institutes Publishing, Rockville,
Maryland, US.
42 Bill Thompson (2007) Wi-fi? Why worry? BBC, Tuesday,
24 April, 07:37 GMT.
43 Grazioli S. Carrell R.C. (2002) Exploding phones and
dangerous bananas: perceived precision and believability of
deceptive internet messages found on the internet, Eighth
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Dysfunction in
Computer-Mediated Communication, 977-1984.
44 Mikkelson B., and Mikkelson, D. (2006) Fuelish
Pleasures, Snopes.com, Retrieved at 27 July 2007
45 Dennis T. (2003) Mobile phones safe in gas stations, The
Inquirer, Friday 26 December, Retrieved at 27 July 2007.
46 Parthasarathy A. (2007) Worker dies after mobile
explodes, The Hindu, (Online edition), Saturday, 27 July.
47 Lyons K. Starner T. Plaisted D. Fusia J. Lyons A. Drew A.
Looney E.W. (2004) Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 671 – 678.
48 Sergio M. Manaresi N. Campi F. Canegallo R. Tartagni M.
Guerrieri, R.A (2003) dynamically reconfigurable monolithic
CMOS pressure sensor for smart fabric, IEEE Journal of
Solid-State Circuits, 38(6), 966-975.
49 Post E.R. Orth M. (1997) Smart Fabric, or "Wearable
Clothing" First International Symposium on Wearable
Computers (ISWC '97), 167-168.
50 Brewster S. Walker A. (2000) Non-visual interfaces for
wearable computers, IEE Seminar Wearable Computing, 145,
6-7.
51 Rothman K.J. Chou C.K. Morgan R. Balzano Q. Guy
A.W. Funch D.P. Preston-Martin S. Mandel J. Steffens R.
Carlo G. (1996) Assessment of cellular telephone and other
radio frequency exposure for epidemiologic research,
Epidemiology, 7(3), 291-298.