The Ring of Truth

Special report on mobile phone risks by the UK Consumers' Association.

Text of report as published in the April 2000 issue of the consumers' Association newsletter, Which?
Mobile phone safety ...
Research notes:
* Which? tested two hands free kits, three cases and two attachments for mobile phones.
* Tests carried out at an independent test house with an international reputation for radio frequency and EMC measurement. All major mobile phone manufacturers use its mobile phone compliance measurement department.
* Tested effectiveness of shields and hands free kits to reduce exposure to RF radiation on two different mobile phones.
* Research aimed to make relative measurements of radio frequency attenuation offered by the shields. SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) or other absolute radio frequency levels were not investigated.
* Measurements made in RF anechoic room. The walls of this room are non-reflecting and absorb incident radio frequencies, so 'free field' condition can be simulated without any interference from other mobile phone
transmitters in the area.
* A network simulator, configured to make the phone operate at maximum power, was used to provide a signal for the phone.
* Two samples of each shield were obtained so the measurements could be carried out using two different phones. Two basic measurements were taken:
- A 'near field' measurement inside a life-size dummy head filled with a saline/gel material to investigate any reduction in field strength. An isotropic E-field probe inside the head, close to the ear, measured RF levels.
- A 'far field', 380 degree scan to check that the device had not significantly affected the phones' overall performance. The phones were rotated, on a calibrated directional Bi-Log receiving antenna at the far end of the chamber.
* The dummy head also enabled realistic and repeatable location of the phone in relation to the head. It provided adequate RF characteristics for our relative (attenuation) measurements. It was not used to measure 'absolute' (SAR) levels.
* Measurements were also made on two hands free kits using the near field method described. Measurements were made with the phone at the head, with the phone a metre away from the head, ( to check for a drop in level) and finally with the hands free kit earpiece connected and located in the ear.
Rigorous research and vigorous campaigning to further its charitable aims are the hallmark of Consumer's Association (CA). The Association is completely independent of government and industry and accepts no grants,
donations or free samples. Which? is published by Which? Limited, the Association's trading subsidiary; in common with all other CA publications, Which? accepts no advertising, in order to protect its independence. Which? is available on subscription from the Subscription Department, Consumers' Association. PO Box 44, Hertford, XSG14 18H. For urgent calls outside normal office hours (9am-6pm), please contact Consumers' Association on 07970 132 811.
The mobile phone hands-free kits we tested triple the radiation penetrating your skull. Should this ring alarm bells?
Think again if you use a hands-free kit to protect yourself from mobile phone radiation - the two we tested increase the radiation levels inside your head compared with holding the phone by your ear. Shields that claim to block radiation also offer no protection. It's nor surprising that people use these devices. With headlines like the
ones below it sounds reassuring to use a device that keeps the phone away from your head. But, in reality, the earpiece wire on the hands-free kits we tested acts as an aerial - and channels three times as much radiation to
your head. Although we tested only two kits, our experts agree others could suffer from the same problem.
We confronted Carphone Warehouse, which sells one of the kits we tested, with the evidence. Its factsheets tell consumers who are concerned about radiation to 'use an earpiece attachments so you are not using the phone
directly next to your head.'
But the response to our findings was pretty disingenuous, the sheets simply state the facts - it is a fact the earpieces remove the phone away from the user's head. The factsheets don't however, state the fact that this can lead to higher radiation levels. Carphone Warehouse says it is revising the factsheets to say it can't comment on the effectiveness of these products - and promises to include our findings.
HOW PHONES AFFECT YOU
Do you need to worry about mobile phone radiation or so headlines like these mislead people into panicking about a problem that doesn't exist?
Most people know that ionising radiation, like x-rays, can cause cancer. Mobile phones, however, emit radio waves. - a type of non-ionising adiation that has different effects. Non-ionising radiators still cause problems though. Exposure to high levels can cause your temperature to rise, which makes your heart work harder and can lead to headaches, sickness and dizziness.
Mobile phones emit only low levels of these radio waves. But some people say that, even at levels too low to cause these hearing effects, they can cause 'non-thermal' effects such as tumours, headaches, and memory loss.
Joan Phillips of Powerwatch - an organisation that gives advice on electromagnetic fields - is in no doubt: 'Anyone who uses a phone extensively runs a risk of adverse health effects. We estimate that 10 per cent of the population may be at risk of milder effects, such as headaches and loss of concentration.'
WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS
Some scientists dispute non-thermal effects, saying they haven't been proved by laboratory experiments. And, if they exist, no-one is sure what level of radio waves causes them. Typical of the often-reported research is a survey of people with brain tumours in Sweden. This found they were more likely to have the tumour on the side of their head on which they said they held their mobile phone. But the study didn't find a higher risk of cancer among mobile phone users generally, and scientists criticised it for relying on people's memory and the small number of people asked. The Royal Society of Canada (RSC), a leading body of scientists, reviewed a large number of research studies last year, and a spokesman said it had found 'increasing evidence' that non-thermal effects exist. However, RSC still says that it isn't yet clear whether radio waves at low intensities cause serious health problems. Many of the studies which show a link between mobile phones and cancer haven't been repeated - so the link could
just be coincidence.
We've looked at eight major reviews of all the scientific evidence, including the RSC's. They all conclude that, as the research stands at the moment no one has proved there definitely isn't a link between exposure to radio waves and cancer or gene damage, but there is only a small likelihood that a link exists.
Phone companies' views
Unsurprisingly, this is the view of mobile phone companies. The Federation of the Electronics Industry (FEI) usually speaks for the mobile phone industry on radiation health risks. It says there is no 'consistent'
evidence of any harmful side effects and that it 'will continue to support independent research in this area and will share information in an open and honest way'.
For those who are still worried, FEI says 'people are free to buy hands-free kits or shields, although we would advise them to beware of products that make false claims and that are not approved by handset manufacturers'. This statement is, perhaps ironic, given the hands-free kits we tested are sold by the networks or major high-street retailers.
Finding a definitive answer
We should have a better idea of any ill effects in the future. The International Agency for Research into Cancer is investigating whether mobile phones increase the risk of cancer in adults. Another project in six European countries is looking into any cancer causing effects on animals. And the World Health Organisation is reviewing the evidence to come up with a universal standard for mobile emissions. For now, though, if you think there are grounds for concern, you're best off reducing your phone use.
(FAR FIELD - NEAR FIELD PICTURE)
Mobile phones must cover a set area called a cell - this can be 100 metres across in a town, and up to five kilometres wide in the country. Hills and trees block the radio signal, and this effects the choice of site for a mast, as well as the area it covers.
Your phone communicates with the mast using its transmitter and receiver. The transmitter broadcasts radio wave signals to the mast regularly, whether or not you are using the phone. That way the network knows where
you are when a call comes through.
The receiver inside your phone picks up signals from the mast. When you are on a call, the mast constantly checks whether your phone is working at the optimum level. If it's not - because, for example, you come to the edge of a cell or go inside a building - the mast sends a signal to the mobile phone telling it to increase its power.
The radio waves emitted by the phone close to your head, called the 'near field', are responsible for health side effects, if any exist. The 'far field' is the part of the radio waves that the mast needs to pick up for you to make a call. The mast has its own near and far field, although most people never get close to its near field.
LIMITS ON PHONE'S RADIATION OUTPUT
Even though the effects are disputed, there are still limits on the levels of radio waves that phones can emit. In the UK, the National Radiological Protection body (NRPB) sets these. It says the research shows that radio
waves from mobile phones don't have enough energy to damage genetic material like DNA, and therefore can't cause cancer. However, it accepts that heating effects could be a problem, and sets the limit so that radio
waves from a mobile phone should not cause any temperature rise. In practice, UK phones emit only a fraction of this recommended level - older analogue phones put out about a third of the limit and newer digital phones just a tenth, although this varies between models. However, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommends a lower limit then NRPB's. If the ICNIRP limit was used, current digital phones would emit about half the recommended maximum - but some older analogue phones would exceed it.
MASTS ARE ALSO SUSPECTED
It's not just phones that give off radio waves. Mobile phone masts – also known as base stations or transmitter - do so too. And last December, Gillian Taylor was given just a couple of days' notice about one being
erected on her roof. When she bought her top-floor flat seven months earlier, no one told her that the free-holder had negotiated a contract with One2One, and now there's a mast directly above her flat. Gillian says,"I'm a nurse and I'm very concerned about the potential health effects posed by radiation and in particular the link to cancer".

TESTING
Many people have devices to keep radiation away from their head - hands-free kits (above), shields (p16) and attachments (p17). Some of these are sold by UK retailer's or packaged with mobile phones. Others are
available by mail order or the Internet.
But the ones we've tested have one thing in common - they don't work. The hand-free kits channel more radiation to your hand, the attachments don't work at all and even when shields cut down the radiation level, your phone
is likely to boost its output to make up for this, which can leave you in a worse position. Most of the manufacturers disputed our findings. However, where they've made a specific claim that we think is not true, we've reported them to their local trade acts department.
Our tests
To measure radiation levels, we used laboratory with an international reputation for mobile phone tests, it tested two hands-free kits, two attachments and three shields.
The lab transmitted a constant signal to the mobile phones in a room with walls that absorb radio waves - so reading weren't confused by external mobile phone transmitters. And we tested the shields and the hands-free
kits on two different phones to make sure the results were consistent. To measure the radiation inside the head , the near field (see opposite) - the lab used a probe inserted inside a dummy head filled with a material that simulates the properties of flesh.
We also measured the signal being broadcast to the network transmitter - the 'far fields' - using another distant probe. For a product to be any use, it needs to reduce the near field without affecting the far field - otherwise the transmitter would register only a weak signal and instruct the phone to boost its power level. This would increase the radio waves in the near field too.
Hands free-kits
If you see people walking down the street talking to themselves, the chances are they are using a hands-free mobile phone kit. These sound like a good idea, as they keep the phone, and you might think, the radiation, away from your head. But, if you use one to protect yourself, you'll be alarmed by our findings.
BT Cellnet Hands-free accessory kit for Phillips Savvy @ 14.95 Pounds This doesn't make a specific claim, which is a good job - it tripled the levels of radio waves inside the head. Phillips told us that its tests found a reduction in radiation levels - but when we carried out the tests a second time to check, we still found three times the levels of radiation.
CarphoneWarehouse Hands-free earpiece for Ericsson A 101BS @ 19.99 Pounds In its leaflet Mobile Phones and Health, Carphone Warehouse says that if you are worried about radiation an earpiece attachment like this kit means
the phone won't be adjacent to your head. In practice, it tripled the radio waves reaching the brain.
Other hands-free kits could have similar effects. These results took us by surprise - by the time we discovered them, it was too late to test mire kits for this issue of Which? But looking at several other kits, our experts though they would also conduct the radiation. You can make a hands-free kit that doesn't act as an aerial - but this would need to be taken into account when designing the phone.
We asked some manufacturers about this. Nokia said its hands-free kit cuts radiation levels in independent tests - but wouldn't show us the results. Ericsson and Panasonic said their phones and hand-free kits meet relevant standards - but didn't say whether the kits boosted or cut radiation reaching the head.
Why there are health concerns
Worries about mast result from research in the UK and Australia, which suggests people who live near TV and radio broadcast towers are more likely to have leukemia. As with the phones themselves, the evidence is unclear
and follow-up studies have contradicted the original claims. Many scientists believe the power from masts is too low to cause health hazards, as long as people are kept away from direct access to the antennas. Base stations don't deliver a large amount of radio energy to small areas of the user's body and so can't create hot spots in the way that phones do. Not everyone is convinced. Campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth Scotland (FES) say that there may be health implications for people living or working near transmitter masts. And they are concerned that, as with
phones, the NRPB guidelines in the UK are higher than levels in other countries. They've received anxious enquiries from tenants living on the top floor of council-owned flats who are worried because they have four or five masts sited on top of their building. FES wants the government to make sure transmitter masts are sited away from schools, hospitals and residential areas.
These objections to mast sitings aren't just limited to Scotland – many local groups are campaigning against masts in their area. In a submission to a House of Commons investigation last summer. Northern Ireland Families
Against Telecommunication Transmitter Siting (NIFATT), a coalition of more than 70 community groups, also suggested the government should implement a buffer zone between homes and masts and encourage the sharing of slices between network operators.
When companies erect masts
Mobile phone networks must follow certain procedures if they want to erect a new mast. To erect one on existing building, however, they can go direct to the local planning authority, which has 28 days to refuse or accept the
application. As Gillian Taylor found, there's no compulsion to consult people living in the building if they don't own the freehold. NIFATT wants this shortened application procedure abolished, and wants mobile phone network operators to go through the full planning permission procedure. This would the length of time from the application to the final decision, and give more opportunity for local consultation. For now, though, the only option for Gillian and the other residents of Buckingham Lodge is legal action against their freeholder. Haringay Planning Department says they can't do anything to stop the mast going up until the law changes. The Federation of the Electronics Industry claim there are benefits from more base stations: 'Base stations do not have limitless capacity, so where
demand is often heavy, the operators are installing more of them. This means that cells are getting smaller, which in turn means that the power emitted by base stations is getting lower, as there is less area to cover'. Orange is one of the few companies that would speak to us directly. It echoes this reassurance and says its masts emissions are far below recommended limits. Its opinion is similar to the industry view on the handsets.: 'There is no conclusive evidence that makes a link between exposure to radio waves [or] transmitter masts and long-term public health
risks'.
This is true as far as it goes - research shown low levels of radio waves from distant masts are unlikely to cause health problems. But a lack of 'conclusive evidence' is little reassurance for people living, working or going to school directly under a base station. Until the research tells us more, it may be prudent for masts to be sited away from homes and schools. And these masts could be closer than your think. Some, like the ones on Gillian Taylor's flat, are obvious. But in rural areas, phone companies disguise masts as trees. And micro cells, a new type of transmitter, look like small boxes. They are attached to walls or lamp posts in areas of high demand like high streets and shopping centres - there are cells every few hundred metres along London's Oxford Street, for instance.
PHONE SHIELDS
Some materials can block radio waves, so if you put them around your phone, it might sound like they could block radiation reaching your head. One big flaw with this idea is the covering your phone like this would stop radio
waves altogether so the phone wouldn't work. What's more, cases made of these materials have to have openings so you can put your phone in – so they leak radio waves. We put three to the test to see what effect they have.
AEGISGuard phone radiation shield @ 34.95 Pounds
Aegis says the 'proprietary materials used in AegisGuard Phone radiation shields select up to 99.9 % of radiation emitted by a properly operating mobile or cellular phone away from the head and neck of the user without
affecting reception'. It says the case is made of material designed to 'deflect' radio waves. Looking at it, however, it shields only the body of the phone, so you wouldn't expect it to affect the radiation from the phone's aerial - which makes it unlikely that it could protect the user. Our verdict: it's true that this didn't affect the signal transmitted by
the phone so it won't affect reception. However, it also didn't reduce the signal picked up by the probe in our dummy test head. It won't give you any protection from radiation.
Microshield phone radiation guard @ 29.95 Pounds
Microshield says 'Independent tests...have shown that Microshield reduces unwanted microwave absorption into the user's head by up to 99%.' This product has a retractable metal 'finger' (an aerial guard) that has to be
raised into position in contact with the aerial to disturb the radio waves. It's made from a material designed to absorb or deflect radio signals. Our verdict. The Microshield case reduces the signal by 70%, but only in one direction - depending on where the transmitter is in real life, this could just make your phone boost its output to compensate. So instead of protecting you from radiation, this could make thing worse. Microshield disputes out ***** and claims that it made a mistake and sold us the wrong covers.
Radiation Rabbit @ 24.99 Pounds
The Radiation Rabbit doesn't make any specific claims, although its name suggests it has an affect. The case extends to partially cover the phone's aerial. Our verdict. It did reduce the level of radio waves from our phone, but by
less than 50%. In real life, this could just lead to your phone boosting its signal and using more power, so you can continue to make calls. This means that your phone could give out more radio waves than without the case.
Attachments
These attachments are designed to stick on the phone but, before we tested them, our experts were baffled as to how they might work. There are materials that absorb or reflect radio waves - iron-based materials can absorb magnetic fields, for instance - but they won't absorb the electric fields generated by a mobile phone. And even if they did, sticking them on your phone or aerial isn't going to help.
Tecno AO Electromagnetic Bioprotection Antenna @ 20 Pounds