"Laptop and Mobile Phone Radiation"

Mungkin anda pernah mendengar isu radiasi pada alat ekektronik seperti handphone atau laptop yang cukup kontroversial. Namun sebenarnya, perlu diketahui bahwa semua alat elektronik mengeluarkan radiasi yang tidak bisa kita hindari, mulai dari TV, mikrowave, komputer, dan lainnya. Padahal seperti yang kita tahu, penggunaan alat-alat ini serasa tidak bisa dihindarkan.

Semua alat elektronik mengeluarkan sejenis medan elektromagnetik (electromagnetic field atau EMF) yang merupakan salah satu jenis radiasi. Namun, EMF adalah jenis radiasi yang non-ionisasi, atau radiasi yang energinya bahkan tidak cukup untuk mengionisasi atom atau mengeksitasi elektron, berbeda dengan radiasi uranium, yang merupakan radiasi ionisasi.

Contoh dari radiasi yang ekstrem dari alat elektronik adalah radiasi dari microwave, yang mengeluarkan medan dengan frekuensi tinggi yang bisa dideteksi meskipun dalam jarak beberapa yard. Namun kebanyakan radiasi alat elektronik lainnya akan berkurang dalam jarak beberapa inchi saja. Jadi selama kita menjaga jarak yang cukup saat menggunakan alat-alat tersebut, maka tidak ada yang perlu dirisaukan.

Namun ada kasus khusus seperti pada penggunaan laptop. Banyak orang meletakkan laptop di atas paha mereka pada saat mereka bekerja. Artinya, jarak antara tubuh dengan laptop adalah nol. Apakah ini mempengaruhi tubuh kita?

Radiasi yang keluar dari laptop kebanyakan berasal dari dalam komponen laptop, seperti harddisk dan chip memori, daripada yang keluar dari screen/ layar.

Tranceiver (penerima) koneksi wireless juga menghasilkan radiasi microwave, sehingga ada juga dugaan yang menyebutkan bahwa sinyal wireless (atau wi-fi, wireless fidelity) jauh lebih berbahaya. Namun WHO (World Health Organization) menyangkal hal ini dan mengatakan bahwa efeknya masih di bawah batas yang bisa merusak tubuh manusia.

Ada rekomendasi bahwa batas medan elektromagnetik yang bisa ditoleransi tubuh adalah 2.5 miliGauss. Namun, laptop ternyata bisa mengeluarkan lebih dari 150 mG saat digunakan.

Komputer desktop dilengkapi dengan casing metal sehingga membentuk pelindung Gauss yang melindungsi dari radiasi. Namun pada pembuat laptop ada yang menghilangkan pelindung ini dari produknya agar laptop mereka lebih ringan dan lebih menarik pengguna.

Menurut factoidz.com, beberapa resiko yang MUNGKIN bisa timbul akibat radiasi yang berlebihan antara lain:

• 
  
• resiko kanker
  
• cacat kelahiran
  
• pembelahan sel yang prematur sehingga menyebabkan mutasi
  
• alzheimer (lupa/ pikun akut)
  

Tumor otak yang semakin menjadi tren di saat telepon selular booming juga menjadi salah satu bukti adanya bahaya radiasi ini. Namun ada juga orang yang tidak terpengaruh apa-apa selama hidupnya walaupun ia juga pengguna handphone. Tetapi perlu juga diperhatikan bahwa ada kemungkinan bahwa pengaruh radiasi-radiasi ini baru akan terasa 50 tahun kemudian di saat efeknya sudah terakumulasi dan tersebar.

Nah, daripada kita berhenti pake laptop, lebih baik melakukan antisipasi agar tidak terjadi sesuatu yang tidak diharapkan di kemudian hari. Usaha yang bisa dilakukan adalah:

• 
  
• letakkan laptop di permukaan selain di atas permukaan tubuh, seperti paha, apalagi jika penggunaannya secara teratur dan intense
  
• jangan memakai bantal untuk alas di atas paha. Walaupun sepertinya hal ini melindungi tubuh, tetapi bantal dapat menghalangi sirkulasi udara/ panas yang dibuang laptop yang pada akhirnya mempersingkat umur laptop
  
• jika harus menggunakan laptop dalam waktu yang lama, usahakan beristirahat di sela-sela waktu yang ada.
  

Selain laptop, alat elektronik yang lain juga memancarkan radiasi yang dapat membahayakan tubuh kita. Alat ini misalnya handphone, dan juga alat-alat elektronik yag sering digunakan oleh kaum wanita.

Handphone/ponsel tidak memancarkan radiasi infra merah pada saat menerima SMS/telepon. Berdasarkan artikel mengenai Cellular Frequencies (Wikipedia), frekuensi handphone adalah pada band 800 Mhz, 1800 Mhz, atau 1900 Mhz, sedangkan gelombang infra merah memiliki frekuensi 300 Ghz – 400 Thz. Ini jelas berbeda jauh. Lagi pula, dalam sebuah handphone yang tidak ada fasilitas komunikasi infra merah, tidak ada alat atau komponen yang dapat memancarkan infra merah.Ketika Anda mengirim/menerima SMS atau menelepon/ditelepon, handphone memancarkan gelombang elektromagnet agar dapat berkomunikasi dengan pemancar operator terdekat. Dalam jumlah yang berlebihan, radiasi ini berbahaya, namun dalam jumlah kecil, radiasi gelombang elektromagnet tidak berbahaya bagi manusia.

FCC (salah satu lembaga pemerintah AS) menetapkan batas maksimal besarnya radiasi yang diperbolehkan untuk handphone atau telepon genggam. Besarnya radiasi handphone ini dinyatakan dalam SAR (Specific absorption rate). SAR adalah nilai maksimum radiasi yang diserap oleh tubuh per satuan berat. FCC menentukan besarnya SAR untuk handphone adalah maksimal sebesar 1.6 W/kg. Negara-negara di Eropa (European Union) menetapkan besarnya SAR maksimal adalah sebesar 2 W/kg. Handphone/ponsel yang berada di atas batas ini tidak boleh diproduksi dan diperdagangkan di negara tersebut.

Anda bisa melihat daftar nilai SAR dari berbagai macam merk HP di situs FCC, Jika nilai SAR tinggi, maka radiasi handphone tersebut tinggi. Sepuluh handphone dengan nilai SAR paling tinggi adalah (namun masih di bawah batas ‘aman’):

1. 
   
2. Motorola V195s (1.6)
   
3. Motorola Slvr L6 (1.58 )
   
4. Motorola Slvr L2 (1.54)
   
5. Motorola W385 (1.54)
   
6. Motorola Deluxe ic902 (1.53)
   
7. T-Mobile Shadow (HTC) (1.53)
   
8. Motorola i335 (1.53)
   
9. Samsung Sync SGH-C417 (1.51)
   
10. Motorola V365 (1.51)
    
11. RIM BlackBerry Curve (AT&T) (1.51)
    

Sepuluh handphone dengan nilai SAR paling kecil (radiasi kecil) adalah:

1. 
   
2. LG KG800 (0.135)
   
3. Motorola Razr V3x (0.14)
   
4. Nokia 9300 (0.21)
   
5. Nokia N90 (0.22)
   
6. Samsung SGH-G800 (0.23)
   
7. Samsung Sync SGH-A707 (0.236)
   
8. Nokia 7390 (0.26)
   
9. Samsung SGH-T809 (0.32)
   
10. Bang & Olufsen Serene (Samsung SGH-E910) (0.33)
    
11. Motorola Razr2 V8 (0.36)
    

Sampai saat ini penelitian mengenai radiasi handphone masih terus dilakukan dan kesimpulan mengenai berbahaya atau tidak masih belum final. Setidaknya kita perlu berhati-hati dengan cara (saran ini diambil dari sini):

1. 
   
2. Menggunakan handsfree jika kita akan menelepon dalam waktu lama.
   
3. Jauhkan handphone dari tubuh Anda.
   
4. Jangan menelepon di mobil tanpa antena eksternal.
   

Biasanya ABG remaja atau muda-mudi yang masih hot-hotnya pacaran sering sekali menggunakan handphone berjam-jam. Apalagi sekarang ada iklan kalau tarifnya murah (0.000…01 rupiah/detik). Bahkan ada yang nelpon semalaman sampai subuh sambil tiduran. Ini tidak baik karena radiasi handphone yang berlebihan dapat berakibat buruk bagi kesehatan.

The effectmobile phoneradiation has on human health is the subject of recent interest and study, as a result of the enormous increase in mobile phone usage throughout the world (as of June 2009, there were more than 4.3 billion users worldwide[1]). Mobile phones useelectromagnetic radiationin themicrowaverange, which some believe may be harmful to human health. A large body of research exists, bothepidemiologicaland experimental, innon-human animalsand in humans, that shows overall no evidence for harmful effects. Otherdigital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.

TheWorld Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, has stated that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects.[2][3]The WHO expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in 2010.[4]Some national radiation advisory authorities[5]have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.

Many scientific studies have investigated possible health effects of mobile phone radiations. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. A recent assessment was published in 2007 by theEuropean CommissionScientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(SCENIHR).[6]It concludes that the three lines of evidence,viz.animal,in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans."

Radiation absorption

Calculated specific absorbed radiation (SAR) distribution in an anatomical model of head next to a 125 mW dipole antenna. Peak SAR is 9.5 W/kg averaged over a 1 mg cube. (USAF/AFRL).

Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the humanhead. The radio waves emitted by aGSMhandset can have a peakpowerof 2watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6watts. Other digital mobile technologies, such asCDMA2000andD-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt,UVA. The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard and by the regulatory agencies in each country.[citation needed]In most systems the cellphone and thebase stationcheck reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate different situations, such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles. The rate at which radiation is absorbed by the human body is measured by theSpecific Absorption Rate(SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In theUSA, theFederal Communications Commission(FCC) has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used, comparisons between different measurements cannot be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves. SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.

Thermal effects

One well-understood effect of microwave radiation isdielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such asliving tissue) is heated by rotations ofpolar moleculesinduced 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 itstemperatureto 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. The brain'sblood circulationis capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing localblood flow. However, thecorneaof the eye does not have thistemperature regulationmechanism and exposure of 2–3 hours duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41°C. There were no cataracts detected in the eyes of monkeys exposed under similar conditions. Premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use, possibly because of the lower power output of mobile phones.

Non-thermal effects

The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate.

Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example,has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production ofheat shock proteinsin order to defend the cell against metaboliccell stresscaused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.

Other researchers believe the stress proteins are unrelated to thermal effects, since they occur for both extremely low frequencies (ELF) and radio frequencies (RF), which have very different energy levels.

Blood-brain barrier effects

Swedish researchers fromLund University(Salford, Brun, Perrson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage ofalbumininto the brain via a permeatedblood-brain barrier.This confirms earlier work on the blood-brain barrier by Allan Frey, Oscar and Hawkins, and Albert and Kerns.Other groups have not confirmed these findings in cellor animal studies.

Cancer

In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) considers this report inconclusive.

The following studies of long time exposure have been published:

§The 13 nation INTERPHONE project - the largest study of its kind ever undertaken - has now been published and did not find a solid link with mobile phones and brain tumours.

TheInternational Journal of Epidemiologypublisheda combined data analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.

The authors reported the following conclusion:

Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

In thepress releaseaccompanying the release of the paper, Dr Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:

An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in astatementthat:

Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)which said in a statement that:

On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:

concludesthat currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,

continuesto inform those concerned about potential health effects that they may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting; and

recommendsthat, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.

The Cancer Council Australia said in astatementthat it cautiously welcomed the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.

Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile phones and cancer.

This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into cancer,” Professor Olver said.

However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.

§A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile phones when responding to a questionnaire.

§A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk ofgliomaormeningioma."

§A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk ofacoustic neuromain the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."

§A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."

§A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."

Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:

§A Swedish scientific team at theKarolinska Instituteconducted anepidemiologicalstudy (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk ofacoustic neuroma, a type of benignbraintumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.

§The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overallodds ratio(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.

In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:

§Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.

§Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.

§Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.

§One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.

In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.

A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, anAustralianneurosurgeon, presented what it termed "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’

A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages. A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.

In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that theinductionperiod relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk."

Cognitive effects

A 2009 study examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right side and sham-exposure.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Main article:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecificsymptomsduring and after its use; ranging from burning andtingling sensationsin the skin of the head and extremities,fatigue, sleep disturbances,dizziness, loss of mentalattention,reaction timesandmemoryretentiveness,headaches,malaise,tachycardia(heartpalpitations), to disturbances of thedigestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed tostressand that current research cannot separate the symptoms fromnoceboeffects.[35]

Genotoxic effects

A large early 2009 meta-study of 101 scientific publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields shows that 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not. Research published in 2004 by a team at theUniversity of Athenshad a reduction in reproductive capacity infruit fliesexposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjectingin vitrosamples of humanspermatozoato radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz andspecific absorption rates(SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreasedmotilityandvitalityin sperm, increasedoxidative stressand8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosinemarkers, stimulatingDNAbase adduct formation and increasedDNA fragmentation.

In 1995, in the journalBioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.Later, in December 2004, a pan-Europeanstudy named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage tochromosomes, alterations in the activity of certaingenesand a boosted rate ofcell division. Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.

Sleep and EEG effects

Sleep,EEGand wakingrCBFhave been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,most other papers have found significant effects on sleep.Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants' broken sleep) actually improved.

While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposureGerman research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%).

Health hazards of base stations

Another area of concern is the radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such asbase stationsand their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna because of theattenuation of power with the square of distance. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (seeSafety standards and licensingbelow). Some countries however (such asSouth Africafor example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations.

Several surveys have found increases of symptoms depending upon proximity to electromagnetic sources such as mobile phone base stations.

A 2002 survey study by Santiniet al.inFrancefound a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who reported that they were living within 300 metres (984 ft) ofGSMcell towers in rural areas, or within 100 m (328 ft) of base stations in urban areas. Fatigue, headache, sleep disruption and loss of memory were among the symptoms reported.[58]Similar results have been obtained withGSMcell towers inSpain,Egypt,PolandandAustria.No major studies have been reported in which health effects did not occur on actual populations living near mobile base stations. However, there are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.Self-report studies can also be vulnerable to thenocebo effect.

A study conducted at theUniversity of Essexand another in Switzerlandconcluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.The Essex study has been criticised as being skewed due to drop-outs of test subjects,although these criticisms were answered by the authors.

As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including3Gtowers which work with larger bandwidths.Many measurements and experiments have shownthat transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern2Gantennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further. The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous,

Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.This recommendation was modified in 2003to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.

Occupational health hazards

Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etcetera, may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, but the power being sent through to the antennas is cut off, so that the workers do not have to work near live antennas.

A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to highRFradiation levels; studies includingradarlaboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred.

Safety standards and licensing

In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.

Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.

Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.

The safety standards in the U.S. are set by theFederal Communications Commission(FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain "sensitive areas" (classrooms, for example).

In the Courts

In theUSA, a small number ofpersonal injurylawsuitshave been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such asMotorola,[73]NEC,SiemensandNokia, on the basis of allegations of causation ofbrain cancerand death. In US federal court, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in aDaubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In one case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer, and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff’s cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs; accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts; and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.

French High Court ruling against telecom company

In February 2009 the telecom companyBouygues Telecomwas ordered to take down amobile phone mastdue to uncertainty about its effect on health. Residents in the communeCharbonnièresin theRhônedepartment had sued the company claiming adverse health effects from the radiation emitted by the 19 meter tall antenna.The milestone ruling by theVersailles Court of Appealreversed theburden of proofwhich is usual in such cases by emphasizing the extreme divergence between different countries in assessing safe limits for such radiation. The court stated that, "Considering that, while the reality of the risk remains hypothetical, it becomes clear from reading the contributions and scientific publications produced in debate and the divergent legislative positions taken in various countries, that uncertainty over the harmlessness of exposure to the waves emitted by relay antennas persists and can be considered serious and reasonable".

Precautionary principle

In 2000, theWorld Health Organization(WHO) recommended that theprecautionary principlecould be voluntarily adopted in this case.[77]It follows the recommendations of theEuropean Communityfor environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches areprudent avoidance principleandas low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free andearphonetechnologies such asBluetoothheadsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.

Precautionary Measures and health advisories

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,France, Germany,and Sweden,have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

§Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.

§Keep the mobile phone away from the body.

§Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industryand others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementaleshowed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping aferrite beadonto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head. Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.

Infra merah yang dipancarkan oleh peralatan elektronik (mouse, remote TV, handphone tertentu) yang telah memenuhi standar kesehatan (FCC) adalah tidak berbahaya. Banyak sumber infra merah lain dalam intensitas yang besar, misalnya matahari, lilin yang menyala, tidak berbahaya bagi tubuh, malah menyehatkan.

Bahkan sekarang ada sauna dengan infra-merah, sehingga Anda tidak perlu repot-repot dengan uap-air panas. Terlepas dari masalah kontroversi penggunaan sauna ini, sauna dengan infra merah tidak menyebabkan sesak nafas karena menghirup uap air.

Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya kita dapat mengawasi dimulai diri kita sendiri dengan penggunaan alat-alat yang dapat membahayakan tubuh kita tersebut. Lakuanlah yang terbaik untuk tubuh kita sejak dini, dan jangan melakukan hal-hal yang dapat membahayakan kesehatan kita kini dan kelak.

source : wikipedia , Oka mahendra

written by : Farmita chairani PSIK FK UNDIP