Mobile Communications:

Addressing Concerns
About Radio Signals
Jack Rowley, PhD,
Senior Director Research & Sustainability
GSM Association
The GSMA in numbers

2
The mobile revolution

3
 Mobile phones need
nearby antenna sites
• Phones are low power devices

• Adaptive power control reduces

interference and extends talk-time

• Higher data rates

4
Higher-speed data services require antennas

Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2013

5
Introduction
Please introduce
yourself and discuss
your motivation for
taking this course.
 History and context

Risk perception
Research
Other impacts
Outrage

1993 – cancer claim

Litigation
Media
Public interest

8
Barrier to deployment

• Less efficient siting

• Barrier to new services
• Delays

http://www.gsma.com/health

9
Associated issues

10
 SESSION 1

1 Radio Signals: Sources

Learning objectives
In this section we will:

• Learn about electromagnetic fields

• Learn some basic formulas needed for assessing exposure
• Learn how radio frequency signals interact with the body
• Learn about the established and controversial health hazards
• Identify reliable sources of information on the subject of health concerns

12
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR)

X E-FIELD

DIRECTION OF
Z
PROPAGATION

Y H-FIELD
one wavelength

Propagation of electromagnetic energy through a medium or space

Radiation = transfer of energy

13
Electromagnetic Fields

http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/electro_spectrum/electro_spectrum.htm

14
RF dielectric heating

E
No Field - +
+ + + + + + + + - - -
- - - + - - -
+ +
+ + + + + + +

+ E

RF fields can affect charged particles and polar molecules leading to heat loss
via ‘friction’.

15
Radiofrequency (RF) signals
Type of electromagnetic energy
Natural form of energy
RF is non-ionizing, unlike x-rays
• Insufficient intrinsic (quantum) energy for genetic damage

Excessive exposure causes heating

• Standards in place to provide protection
• Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) with units of W/kg

16
Field (wave) impedance
Field (wave) impedance is the ratio of the electric (E) to the magnetic (H)
field strength.

Usual symbol is Z

Z= E/H
where E in Volts/metre (V/m)
H in Amperes/metre (A/m)

Z= 377 Ω (Ohm) in free space in the far field

17
Power flux density
The rate of electromagnetic energy flow across a unit area
Usual symbol is S
The unit is the W/m2 (watt per square meter)

In the far field S = E x H where

,
E = electric field strength in V/m
H = magnetic field strength in A/m
S = power flux density in W/m²

Other convenient units are

1 mW/cm² = 10 W/m²
1 µW/cm2 = 0.01 W/m2

18
Relationship between E, H and S
In the far field...

• S = E x H (W/m2)

• S = E² / 377 (W/m2)

• S = 377 x H² (W/m2)

E = S  377 (V/m)

19
1 Using the formulas —
questions
• Given S = 10 W/m2 calculate
E=

• Given E = 0.6 V/m calculate:

S (in W/m2)
S (in mW/cm2)
Using the formulas — answers
• Given S = 10 W/m2 calculate:

E= 𝑆 × 377 = 10 × 377 = 61.4 V/m

• Given E = 0.6 V/m calculate:

𝐸2 0.62
S= = = 0.00095 W/m2 = 9.5 x 10-4 W/m2
377 377
S ≈ 1x10-3 W/m2

S (in mW/cm2) = = 0.000095 mW/cm2 = 9.5 x 10-5 mW/cm2

21
WHO International EMF Project

22
Evidence subject to regular expert review

http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/mobile-and-health/science-overview/reports-and-statements-index/

23
Review of scientific evidence
The scientific review must be comprehensive.
• No single study can prove a health effect.

The review must be selective:

• Studies are critically evaluated based on the three ‘R’s:
• Robust
• Reliable
• Replicable

Weight of evidence
• Not about counting
• Quality
• Consistency

24
Effects versus hazards
Biological effect versus health hazard
• Effect: response within normal range (For example: response of eye to light level changes)
• Hazard: response outside normal range (For example: laser damage to the eye)

A biological effect does not imply a health hazard.

25
Association does not mean causation

Messerli, 2012

26
Large body of EMF research

www.emf-portal.de

27
Many studies specific to mobile
communications

n = 998
n = 67 (RF & children)
(24 April 2014)

http://www.emf-portal.de/overviews.php?l=e

28
Hazards of radiofrequency (RF) exposure
Established Not established

• Behavioural changes in response • Cancer

to heating • Fertility
• Cataracts (very intense • Electro hypersensitivity
exposures) • Symptomatic complaints
• Microwave hearing (radar pulses)
• Animals, plants

29
Established effects form the basis of RF
exposure standards
• The only adverse effects that have been clearly observed and understood are
acute (immediate).

• Absorption of radiofrequency energy leads to an increase of body

temperature (general or local).

• Thermal effects exhibit thresholds that are well above levels that are
experienced by the public.

• Exposure limits (well below thresholds) totally prevent such effects.

30
Possibility of long-term effects

Concern has been expressed about the possibility that chronic (long-term)
exposures to low-intensity RF fields (that is, below recommended limits of
international guidelines) may increase the risk of pathologies, especially cancer.

Why?

• References to radiation
• Limited and contradictory evidence from epidemiology
• Impossible to prove no risk

Can’t be used as basis for setting exposure standards:

• No plausible interaction mechanism identified

• Virtually no support from laboratory studies
• Inconsistent results

31
1 Group discussion
1. What evidence would you use to counter or
balance an argument that radio signals are
health hazards? Why would you use that
evidence?
2. How would you present an explanation to
an individual concerned about the effects of
radio signals on their health using what we
have learned in Session 1?
You have now reached
the end of this session