How excessive cell phone usage can cripple a child’s mental development

The scene of a quiet child tapping away at a phone or tablet with glee is an image that, by now, most people are familiar with. It may seem cute at first, however a sinister reality lurks beneath this scenario. Overwhelming research now shows that excessive cell phone usage in infants and adolescents can slow down, or even permanently alter, various parts of their extremely sensitive and still growing brains. Social skills, cognitive abilities, and emotional awareness can all be affected. This technology is often incredibly addicting because of its constant bombardment of lights, colors, and rewarding sounds that can thus inhibit a child’s ability to focus, learn how to properly socialize with other humans, and develop an interest in other activities. We as a society should be more aware of the effects that our phones have on our children so that we do not end up altering the biology of an entire generation. It should be our utmost goal as a society that we stay technologically literate so that we make our technology supplement our lives and work for us as opposed to being dependent on it to survive.

How much time is too much time?

Smart phones have positive benefits for children when used in small amounts, however there are dangerous consequences if their usage is excessive and left unchecked. For the sake of clarity, “excessive phone usage” will refer to the American Academy of Pediatric’s (AAP) 2018 suggested screen time limits.

“Avoid digital media for toddlers younger than 18 to 24 months other than video chatting. For children 18 to 24 months, watch digital media with them because they learn from watching and talking with you. Limit screen use for preschool children, ages 2 to 5, to just 1 hour a day of high-quality programming” [1].

Cell phones can permanently stunt a child’s neural development

Scientists have identified the first three years of a child’s life to be their “critical years,” a time when their brains are undergoing the most development and are the most sensitive to new information. It is imperative that children constantly interact with their parents via face to face communication, problem solving, and play in order to begin experiencing life while establishing the literal building blocks that will enable them to perceive and interact with the world around them for the rest of their lives. Children’s minds are akin to soft clay that can be easily molded, and both positive and negative experiences can have lasting effects on them. Excessive screen time can cause permanent damage to the brain and can inhibit “the ability to focus, to concentrate, to lend attention, to sense other people’s attitudes and communicate with them, (and) to build a large vocabulary….”

The short term, immediate gratification responses that phones constantly give usually train our brains to become addicted to always expecting quick responses from tasks that we engage in. This can make completing longer tasks that require more focus such as reading, paying attention in class, doing homework, or holding a conversation more difficult and can have lasting ramifications on a child’s performance in school and in social settings [2].

Excessive usage can make children socially awkward and anxious

As most teens and adults learn the hard way, the best way to grow socially is by directly engaging in the social behaviors that we often dread the most. Making new friends, talking to the opposite gender, and public speaking all become easier the more a person partakes in the activity despite how nerve-wracking they may initially be. This is especially true for children, who are socially clean slates that learn how to socialize by interacting with other children, their parents, and through play. Cell phone usage promotes a sedentary lifestyle, and a child can rarely grow socially by being sedentary. Playing with other kids teaches cooperation, empathy, and compassion. These are very human traits that cell phones cannot teach a child. Failing to develop strong social skills can lead to social anxiety, which has a host of its own problems, since a child may be ill-prepared to deal with social scenarios such as these ones.

The AAP recommends interacting with your child by asking them questions and encouraging a response while they use phones instead of just leaving them to their own devices. This way, they are interacting with their parents, as is necessary for their growth, and having the phone supplement their learning in the way that it is supposed to.

Prolonged usage can easily lead to addiction and dependence

Our brains have a built-in reward system that awards us when we achieve something of value. The chemical most commonly associated with this system, and most well-known by society, is dopamine. Normally, our brains receive dopamine in reasonable and completely safe doses as we go about our day whenever we feel we should be rewarded for something. This can include finishing an assignment, sending a difficult email to an even more difficult colleague, or when eating sweets. It makes us feel good and relaxed but can be addicting in large amounts. Cell phones can cause an overproduction of dopamine that has been compared, though to a lesser extent, to the excessive amount of dopamine produced as a result of abusing hard drugs, such as cocaine. Have you ever caught yourself reaching for your phone, without even thinking about it, as soon you hear a text message notification go off? That’s dopamine at work. It’s the rush that we get when something satisfactory happens, and it is all too easy to trigger with phones. Dopamine can easily become addictive, and the brain can become dependent on receiving a certain amount of dopamine every once in a while if it receives too much too quickly. This may be one reason why we may sometimes glance at our phones even if we know there is nothing new to look at.

In children whose brains are still developing, this dependence on dopamine can be catastrophic towards their growth. Their brains are much more susceptible to dopamine addictions than teens or adults are, though this is not to imply that older populations are safe. This is why a child may seem impossibly glued to a phone and will throw a tantrum once they are told to put it down. A proven method to help rid addictions, including cell phone addictions, is to replace the addictive behavior with a similar, healthier, but equally satisfying behavior. Phones can be replaced with Legos, or other interactive toys, in order to teach a child that there are ways to have fun besides phones. Going cold on an addiction rarely works as it does not sate the brain’s hunger for dopamine.

It is entirely possible for us to regain control

Fortunately, there are plenty of solutions that families can utilize in order to make sure that phones do not dominate their lives. Professional organizations such as the AAP and Mayo Clinic stress the importance of unstructured playtime for the minds of young children. In general, psychologists have realized that unstructured play is actually vital for the growth of children’s brains since it encourages creativity, imagination, and problem solving. Their brains are encountering problems, and thus creating solutions that lead to growth and understanding, while they play. Cell phones, on the other hand, tend to do the work for them instead and do not allow the brain to learn. This is especially true for videos that tell children everything that they need to know and do not give them time to problem-solve on their own.

The AAP encourages parents to establish a Family Media Plan that clearly outlines when and where family members can use their technology. Parents may consider forbidding technology at certain places, such as the dinner table, or doing activities, such as weekly board game nights, without technology either in order to remove the barriers that technology so often puts between us. A strong family is one where all family members have firm trust, understanding, and respect in between one another. Less face-to-face interaction, and an obsession with screens from both parents and children, can very much damage these bonds. You can make a Digital Media Plan for your family at www.HealthyChildren.org/MediaUsePlan.

Technology is awesome when used properly and in reasonable amounts!

Virtually every person can name at least one technological medium that brings them joy and can bring them closer to the people that they care about. For some, this may be gathering around the couch and watching a movie or TV show. Others may prefer interactive video games that can bring the family together and can promote bonding in ways similar to board games. The internet also possesses an infinite treasure trove of resources that can greatly enhance education and our general quality of life. This technology mainly becomes problematic once we fail to monitor it properly and allow it to spiral out of control. But in moderation and under control, these innovations are a series of mind-blowing inventions that dazzle the mind and can very much aid our personal and family goals.

There are organizations out there that are constantly raising awareness and promoting online safety

In recent years, parents have realized how destructive cell phones can be to their families and have decided to do something about it. “Wait Until 8^th” is a grassroots movement that encourages parents across the country to take a pledge that they will not give their children a smart device until they are at least 8 years old. It was started by Brooke Shannon and a few other parents in Austin, Texas, and works to empower parents and communities about the dangers of cell phones for kids. You can learn more about the pledge at www.waituntil8th.org.

There is also a wealth of resources for parents that are concerned about their children’s online safety. The National Cyber Security Alliance, Project Safe Childhood, and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children all help spread awareness about internet safety and the consequences of careless internet surfing. It should be a goal of every parent to stay technologically literate and up to date about which websites their children are visiting and the apps that they use.

Make technology work for you, as opposed to working for it

Our world is changing faster than we can adapt to it, and smart phones are no exception. New technology always presents new challenges, especially when it can take so long to thoroughly research the effects that this technology can have on our minds and bodies. It is important to always stay technologically literate so that we may provide the best quality of life that we can for our families. Technology, above all else, is a double-edged sword.

References

1. “Children and Media Tips from the American Academy of Pediatrics.” org, 1 May 2018, www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/news-features-and-safety-tips/Pages/Children-and-Media-Tips.aspx.
2. “What Screen Time Can Really Do to Kids’ Brains.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/behind-online-behavior/201604/what-screen-time-can-really-do-kids-brains.

There are already 1.5 billion smartphone users and a total of 5 billion mobile phones in the world. Smartphone companies are announcing new phone models with improved capabilities every year. These are smarter and better phones with new sensors, powerful chips, and new capabilities. Newspapers and technology blogs often start discussing rumors about an upcoming smartphone several months before its launch.

Over the past few years, we have seen many futuristic prototypes and designs. Consumers request better and smarter phones that can handle more and more tasks with every new model. Although the phone companies are surprising us with new smartphones every year, we are far from seeing some of the technologies presented in prototypes. What do you expect to see in smartphones in the next 5 to 10 years? Let’s talk about some of the technologies that will end up in a smartphone in the near future.

One of the critical components in a smartphone is the battery. While most smartphones only support being charged from a wall plug, some of them are supporting inductive wireless charging out of the box. Although it is not a standard feature for most smartphones, wireless charging can be enabled using third-party cases and charging pads. Current wireless charging systems still require the smartphone to be placed on a pad for charging. A bigger step in powering smartphones will be touchless wireless charging. A new startup company, Ossia [1], recently unveiled the world’s first commercially viable touchless remote wireless power system. Imagine you are walking into your house or office, and the smartphone in your pocket is starting to charge via receiving electric waves through the air.

With wired or wireless charging, the battery technology of smartphones remained largely unchanged for years. A large percentage of smartphone bodies are occupied by lithium-ion batteries. With the developments of new power efficient displays and computing chips, smartphones are now using less and less power. This allows manufacturers to use smaller batteries with the same usage time. Battery technologies are not efficient enough to power smartphones more than a couple of days with average daily usage. People often carry extra batteries and chargers when travelling or spending time outside. Solar charging can help with some of these challenges by enabling smartphones to recharge under sunlight. Researchers are also exploring other materials to replace lithium-ion (e.g. graphene) in batteries to provide extra power for the ever-growing size of smartphone displays.

Smartphone displays are getting bigger and better with ultra-high screen resolutions that are sometimes even stronger than the human eye. Some manufacturers are already working on 4K ultra HD displays (3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall). With the screen sizes getting larger, the distinction between a smartphone and tablet is becoming less clear. Some smartphones are even called phablet, a new category between smartphones and tablets, by newspapers and tech blogs.

A bigger jump in display technology will be through the use of flexible screens. There are already prototypes of 5-inch flexible displays or 50 inch curved televisions from several companies. One benefit of flexible displays would be fitting a tablet size screen on a small smartphone body. Users will be able to slide or unfold the display of a typical size (e.g. 4-inch) smartphone, and convert it to an 8-inch tablet. Companies are still looking for a good use case for flexible displays in daily life. Some applications of the smartphones with flexible displays make them closer to wearable devices. Some of them have appeared as watches or bracelets.

Another development in display technology is transparency. There are already prototypes of transparent displays in various sizes and forms. Transparency is important for heads-up displays and some models where seeing the background is necessary. This technology will allow displays on glasses, contact lenses, windows, and windshields. An obvious application of the transparent displays in cars is a GPS navigation system on the windshield [2]. This will open a full immersive experience by showing directions directly positioned on the road, virtual signs on the sidewalks, and even augmented information about companies and addresses directly on the walls of the buildings. Imagine seeing a large virtual menu or information panel with available seats, business hours, and prices on the wall of a restaurant. While the transparent displays are already available in various prototypes, the main challenge is achieving transparency in electronics and other components in a smartphone.

Even with flexible displays, you may not be able to carry and fold a 50-inch display into typical smartphone size. A major shift from increasing the display size will come via the use of pico-projectors. A smartphone, with a decent display size (e.g. 5 inch) for everyday use, can be turned into a full size (e.g. 50-inch) media consumption system with an integrated pico-projector. Although there are prototypes of pico-projectors embedded into smartphones, there are still many technical limitations in projection size, brightness, battery life, and cost of components.

While larger displays provide a better experience for users, the consumable content is mostly 2-dimensional. Even though there are games and movies designed and recorded in 3-dimensional environments, they still cannot provide a true 3D experience. All of this 3D content is projected onto a 2D screen in smartphones. There are prototypes giving the 3D effect by providing 2 separate images to both eyes by using a stereoscopy or parallax barrier. These technologies have limitations in field of view, viewing angle, interactivity, and distance of viewer. Researchers can create a pseudo 3D experience via head tracking, using camera or sensors to provide a glass-free experience. This allows users to see a different perspective of the scene on the phone by looking from different angles. The technology is still in its early steps with limited applications and hardware support for the full immersive experience and interaction.

The keyboard is main point of interaction in smartphones. One of the major changes in smartphones was eliminating the physical keyboard on the phone. Now most of the front face of the phone is covered with the display. Multi touch displays provide on-screen keyboard for text input. While they are similar in size, on-screen keyboards allow customization for different languages, use cases, and applications. On-screen keyboards try to imitate the haptic feedback through vibrations, but still cover almost half of the screen during typing. There are prototypes with air-inflatable buttons in real 3D forms using a transparent layer on the screen to provide realistic haptic feedback. The size of the keyboard is the main limitation for smartphones. A new prototype eliminates even the on-screen keyboard using laser projection. A small device projects a full size virtual keyboard on a flat surface like table using lasers, and tracks finger movements for recognizing key inputs. This allows both customization and experience of a full size keyboard, while making the screen fully available for other functions on the phone.

While the main input point for the phone is through virtual or on screen keyboards, a smartphone actually gets many inputs from outside through sensors. The full potential of these phones can only be achieved through new technological sensors in the phone. GPS and compass sensors allow navigation and direction capabilities, and replace the need for a GPS device for most users. Many smartphones are now listed as the most used camera devices on photography websites, and are getting closer to the quality of a DSLR camera with new image sensors. Proximity sensors understand the distance between device and user, and allow the device to turn off the display during phone calls to reduce battery usage. Accelerometer and gyro sensors provide new inputs for gaming and user interaction. Barometer, temperature, humidity, gesture, fingerprint, and heart rate sensors are becoming part of many smartphones. Researchers are already experimenting with ultrasound [3] and x-ray scanners [4] for smartphones, and we are getting one step closer to the Star Trek tricorder, a general-purpose science fiction health diagnosis device.

The future of smartphones is almost unlimited. We have already seen novel technologies introduced for smartphones as prototypes and concept designs. We can easily extend the list with intelligent assistants, nano-coating for waterproofing and self-cleaning, seamless integration of voice controls and augmented reality, environmental and medical sensors, and 3D and holographic displays. I can’t wait to see some of these technologies integrated into smartphones in the near future.

While smartphones revolutionized the way we communicate and how we carry out many of our daily tasks, at the same time they are challenging our privacy, safety, behavioral codes, social life, and the use of public space. The problems and discussions will not end here, and they are growing with the introduction of new sensors and capabilities. Increasing awareness through education about the security and privacy risks that smartphones present is the first step for protecting users from future problems. Parents and educators have a critical role for raising responsible generations, and they can start with becoming a good role model [5] on how they use their smartphones…

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous [6], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought.

References

1. Darrell Etherington. 2013. “Cota By Ossia Aims To Drive A Wireless Power Revolution And Change How We Think About Charging,” September.
2. Jared Newman. 2013. “GPS on Your Windshield: Garmin Brings Navigation HUDs to Regular Old Cars,” Time Magazine, July.
3. “Ultrasound scan and health check using your smartphone,” BBC News, December 2013.
4. James Plafke. 2013. “Tiny terahertz chips can give smartphones X-ray vision, tricorder-like functionality,” ExtremeTech, July.
5. Larry Magid. 2012. “Smartphone Guide for Parents of Tweens and Teens,” SafeKids.com, August 2012.
6. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com.

In recent years, people have been divided by conflicting studies about the risk of cancer posed by cell phone radiation. Does the current conflicting research eradicate or support the cell phone-cancer controversy?

Cell phone use has shown a dramatic increase in the world during the 1990s. The heated controversy today is about whether there is a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of developing malignant and benign brain tumors. This controversy did not exist—at least in the eyes of the public—until accumulating anecdotal evidence began suggesting a link between cell phone use and cancer. Since the first pieces of anecdotal evidence, numerous studies have investigated the cell phone-brain cancer link and a general summary of the findings is, at best, confusing. The substantial room for improvement in the experimental designs of these studies, the appearance of brain cancer after a long period of exposure, and some conflicts of interest among researchers prevented the results from being conclusive. More recent studies provide growing evidence for the link, suggesting there is reason to be suspicious about the studies that refute the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer.

Possible health issues regarding exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy were described in a previous Fountain article (Tombak, 2002). This article also stated that proving or disproving the existence of RF exposure’s biological hazards remains an issue for epidemiology due to relatively low exposure levels, relatively small populations, and a lack of reliable dose estimates. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is now maintaining an up-to-date web page to inform the public on key points that can be drawn from epidemiological studies investigating the cell phone-brain cancer link. It would be advisable that individuals concerned about this potential link become familiar with this web page and visit frequently to check the updates. A regular visitor will notice that the language on this page is evolving in every update in a way that the most recent version is less likely than the previous one to discredit the link as “out of the question”. This is because we are starting to see—albeit still opposed as weak—stronger signs of the alleged link as there is an increase in both the sheer number and the experimental design quality of relevant studies.

The first two key points that NCI draws on concern the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by cell phones, and the factors that determine a users energy exposure level. It would not be surprising if this train of thought followed with a third key point that stated that the cancer risk depended on the amount of energy that each individual was exposed to. However, the third key point quickly draws the conclusion that “studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head and the neck.” It further states “more research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly”.

Regardless of what type of general message one gets from these three key points, I want to emphasize that there is benefit in avoiding a lump-sum conclusion, and in making oneself aware of the results of individual studies. Before I move on to individual studies, however, I will point out how scientifically sound interpretations of statistical power and significance may lead to categorizations as ‘non-existent’ or ‘weak’, but how this scientific reasoning can potentially be misleading for the population at large. In this manner, one would better be able to make sense of why cell phone companies are, on one hand, highlighting the studies that have failed to find a causal link between cell phone use and brain cancer, but on the other hand, are taking all legal precautions necessary to prevent a future litigation by inserting a warning slip in fine print that cautions users not to hold the phone closer than a certain distance against one’s head or body.

The null vs. the alternative

A statistical hypothesis test involves two hypotheses: the null and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis represents the status quo; it assumes that there is no real difference between the two groups under study and the observed difference can be attributed to random chance. Drawing a parallel with legal systems, the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty can be interpreted as saying that his or her innocence is the null hypothesis. There has to be sufficient evidence on the contrary, i.e showing the guilt, in order to be able to convict the defendant. In a similar fashion, an epidemiological study investigating the presence of a link between cell phone use and brain cancer would have a null hypothesis that states the absence of such a link. The cell phone technology is assumed to be innocent unless the data prove otherwise.

The alternative hypothesis, the latter of the two, represents the claim that there actually is a statistically significant link between cell phone use and brain cancer, and the observed link cannot be attributed to random chance. In our legal analogy, the alternative hypothesis is laying the charges against cell phone technology, thus as the Latin maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” states, the burden of proof lies with the alternative hypothesis.

As a consequence of this construction, a hypothesis test can have only one of two conclusions. If the data shows results that are beyond some predetermined significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected and the researchers believe that there is sufficient evidence to say that the alternative is true. Such a conclusion would establish a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. On the other hand, if the results do not reach the desired significance level, the conclusion is not the confirmation of the null hypothesis, but a failure to conclude that the alternative is true. In other words, when the desired significance level is not reached, the only outcome is a lack of conclusion; the test would not falsify the null hypothesis but would not declare it to be true either. The accused would be vindicated on the basis of insufficient evidence.

News on the innocence of cell phone technology, or any technology for that matter, should be read primarily with this perspective in mind. The conclusions of research studies are reported on the basis of whether the results “reach or fail to reach significance”. However, a more meaningful statistic to report from the study would be the deviation of the results from significance, if they were not significant. Results that are close to statistical significance can still be “meaningful”. After all, the significance level chosen for most studies relies more on traditional scientific habits than anything else. In this perspective, it can even be called arbitrary. In reality, we may not have expertise in today’s world to determine whether a 5% significance level is more meaningful than a 10% when it comes to studying the link between cell phone use and brain cancer. So when the NCI officials mention “lack of a consistent link,” all of what they mean is that the desired significance level has not been reached in most credible and up-to-date studies. Yet, the public is not informed about how significant the results were. Furthermore, as we see in the much-acclaimed Interphone study, failure to reach significance in the entire study may be overshadowing the fact that significance was attained for a subgroup of people, for instance, the top 10% of the population with highest cell phone use (The Interphone study group, 2010).

Perspectives on brain cancer risk

News regarding cell phone tumor risks is plainly confusing because a battle continues among different international panels and interest groups over how to analyze and interpret cell phone tumor data. An article (July 6, 2011) on Microwave News explains why there is no overlap in the conclusions made by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the two panels that are supposed to work together, but fell into deep disagreement as the data started showing some link between cell phone use and brain cancer. This piece is a highly suggested read for anyone who would like to be able to make more sense of the past and potentially future news on cell phone tumor risks.

The Interphone study

Much of the current debate on cell phone tumor risks actually revolve around the Interphone study, which was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries, and is the largest health related case control study of the use of cell phones and head and neck tumors. According to NCI’s summary, “most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One recent analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a reduced risk of brain cancer.”¹

The general message that comes across in NCI’s summary of Interphone results is that we do not have enough reason to believe that cell phones are dangerous. However, it is very important to remember that one can never accept the null hypothesis that “cell phones are safe.” The only conclusion that can be drawn is on the basis of insufficient evidence, which is to say that cell phones are dangerous since the desired significance level has not been reached.

As the Interphone study is the largest of its kind, it has drawn substantial attention from concerned parties, and a significant part of this attention has been in the form of harsh criticisms for the experimental design, data analysis, and stated conclusions. For instance, one of Interphone’s biggest critics, the International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Collaborative, published a paper in May 2010 detailing the flaws of the study. Among other things, these flaws included using data from 2004 and before when cell phone use was much less common, categorizing subjects who used cordless phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults who are more vulnerable.

In August 2009, more than forty leading independent scientists, physicians and other experts from fourteen countries endorsed the white paper “Cell-phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” by US researcher Lloyd Morgan. Investigating the research on cell phone tumor risks including the Interphone study, this paper concluded that “there is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use; telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors; and children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors”. Unlike the Interphone study, some industry funded research also accepts the risks associated with cell phone use. In 1999, Dr. George Carlo, head of a $25m research body funded by the mobile phone industry in the US, said his study showed an increased risk of getting a type of rare brain tumor from using mobile phones. This early in the debate, he was probably one of the first researchers with links to industry who stopped ruling out the tumor risks of cell phones.

A review of other main studies

Hardell et al.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, is one of the most adamant leaders in cautioning the world about cell phone tumor risks. In 2007, he and his team reported that cell phone users were at an increased risk of malignant glioma, and that a daily one-hour exposure significantly increased the risk for developing a brain tumor after 10 years (Hardell et al., 2007). In a more recent study also cited by NCI, they found statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before the age of 20 (Hardell et al., 2011). They also published a number of other papers in epidemiological journals pointing to the risks associated with cell phone and cordless phone usage.

The Danish cohort study

A 2011 cohort study in Denmark linked billing information from more than 420,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry (Frei et al., 2011). This study was an update on the 2006-update of a 2001 cohort study (Schüz et al., 2006; Johansen et al., 2001) that has been dogged by controversy and political suspicions since the first results were published ten years ago. NCI cites the study and states that the analyses found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 10 or more years. However, there is no mention of the published or vocal criticisms of the study.

The main criticism for the study is that more than 200,000 corporate mobile subscribers were excluded from the cohort as cell phone bills were not in users’ names. Microwave News states, “In the time period covered in the Danish project—from 1987 through 1995—cell phones were expensive and it’s no stretch to assume that those who did not have to pay their own bills racked up the most talk time.”² Thus, the study designers effectively removed one-third of the population with the heaviest cell phone use. Dr. Lennart Hardell had also criticized the original 2001 paper by publishing on the shortcomings that make the conclusions premature (Hardell and Mild, 2001). Concerning the 2011 update, the Microwave News bluntly suggests, “Don’t believe a word of it”.

It is also interesting to note that the results came just five months after a panel of experts from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed cell phones a possible cause of cancer—a statement that sparked fear in many of the world’s 5 billion cell phone users.

Conclusion

While there is still no established causal link between cell phone use and cancer, we know as a fact that different research groups have found an increased risk of a rare type of brain cancer among heavy users. Even though children are known to be at a greater risk because of being in earlier stages of neural development, it is unfortunate that data from children were not included in studies until very recently. Concerned citizens of the world need to raise awareness about the behind-the-scenes battle taking place between different international panels and interest groups. This will make a reliable interpretation of conflicting news more possible. Further corroboration for both statistical and anecdotal evidence on the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer may be necessary to “prove” a link, but this should, by no means, be interpreted as a vindication of cell phones. In the meantime, it is only safe to take precautions oneself, and encourage loved ones to reduce exposure to electromagnetic energy from cell phones by using a hands-free device and by reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations.

Notes

1 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

2 http://www.microwavenews.com/DanishCohort.html#Continued

References

• Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. 2011. “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study.” British Medical Journal; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.
• Hardell, L., Walker, M. J., Walhjalt, B., Friedman, L. S. and Richter, E. D. 2007. “Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine,; 50: 227–233. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20357.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson-Mild K, Morgan LL. 2007. “Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: Increased risk associated with use for > or = 10 years.” Occup Environ Med. 64:626–632.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2011. “Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.” International Journal of Oncology; 38(5):1465–1474.
• Hardell L, Mild KH. 2001. “Re: Cellular Telephones and Cancer—a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark”; JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 93(12): 952.
• Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. 2001. “Cellular telephones and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 93(3):203–207.
• Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. 2006. “Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 98(23):1707–1713.
• Tombak, Ali. 2002. “Biological Effects of Cellular Phones.” The Fountain, 37 (1).
• The Interphone Study Group. 2010. “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study.” International Journal of Epidemiology; 39(3):675–694.

I know You say

There is no compulsion in religion

But I don’t want this freedom

Any longer

You can have it

And me as well

Only teach me to count

One and one and one is one

And gather up the world’s phone-books

So You can read me

All of Your beautiful names.

Jacob Winkler is a spiritual teacher and creator of the website www.glorytothehighest.com.

As we approach the new millennium, satellite-based communication systems will be the next frontier for this industry. They will assume a vital role in infrastructure, securing telecommunication links during disasters and supporting humanity’s space-based efforts.

A new epoch in space-based wireless communications has already begun with the deployment of two low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) communication satellite systems: Iridium and Globalstar. The Motorola-led Iridium consortium successfully launched the last five satellites in its strong network during the last year. The entire Iridium network integrates terrestrial phone systems and satellites.

Several other satellite systems having global or broad geographical coverage will join this new arena within the next 3 to 4 years, thereby complementing and extending existing terrestrial wireless services. Users of conventional terrestrial cellular services, business people, travelers, maritime vessels, aeronautical and industrial facilities, journalists, government agencies, the Coast Guard and emergency-related organizations, others on the go, and people living in sparsely populated areas will be able to communicate with each other via these services.

Satellite-based mobile communication systems are characterized by the distance of their satellites from Earth. LEO satellites are typically located 310 miles (500 kms) to 932 miles (1,500 kms) above the planet, whereas medium-Earth-orbit (MEO) versions are located from 3,100 miles (5,000 kms) to 7,456 miles (12,000 kms) above the planet. Geosynchronous Earth-orbit satellites, located 22,245 miles (35,800 kms) above the equator, move in synchronism with Earth’s rotation. While GEO satellites seem to be stationary to an Earthbound observer, LEO and MEO satellites appear to be in constant movement.

GEO SYSTEMS

GEO satellites have been used in such commercial communication services as television broadcasting and long-distance telephone trunking, and for maritime communication services since 1965. With the exception of the polar regions, global coverage can be provided by three GEO satellites equally spaced above the equator. In the past, GEO satellites were not viable for hand-held phone communications due to the lengthy signal propagation delay and large power loss. Advances in space technology, however, allow satellites equipped with large-aperture phased array antennas to increase their transmitting power, thereby making the GEO approach viable for delivering telephony to hand-held phones in vast areas of the world.

Several operators have opted for regional GEO systems, which typically require a single satellite. The Asia Cellular Satellite System (ACeS), which is being developed by a three-company consortium from Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, will provide services in 26 Southeast Asian countries, including Japan, China, India, and Pakistan. ACeS’s satellite, positioned over the equator at 118 degrees east longitude above the island of Borneo, offers mobile phone, facsimile, data, and paging services. Hence, many people in this region who have no access to terrestrial communication links will one day be able to roam anywhere they wish and still keep in touch with each other.

Another regional GEO satellite, Thuraya, will furnish mobile satellite services to 1.8 billion people in 58 countries ranging from the Middle East and North Africa to eastern Europe, Turkey, the Indian subcontinent, and Central Asia. Thuraya will be positioned over the equator at 44 degrees east above the Somali coast. The program, a consortium of 14 telecommunications organizations in various Arab countries, is run out if its headquarters in the Thuraya Satellite Communications Co., located in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

The Thuraya system will use a time-division-multiple-access (TDMA) scheme and support 13,750 voice channels. Hughes Network Systems will supply the dual-mode handsets. The satellite will connect calls from users to other users through its 256 reconfigurable spot beams. The company presently envisions an air-time price of US $0.50 per minute for system users.

LEO SYSTEMS

LEO satellites at very low altitudes differ from GEO satellites in two main ways: they are close enough to receive hand-held device signals with a very small propagation delay, and they form cellular towers in the sky. The major disadvantage of LEO systems, when compared with GEO systems, is that they require more satellites with a smaller size and lighter weights to provide global coverage. Complicated ground-based tracking systems are needed to control LEO satellites.

The Iridium system operated by the Motorola-led international consortium of 20 telecommunications and industrial companies is the first LEO system to turn the promise of global wireless service into a reality. By integrating ground-based cellular infrastructures with 66 LEO satellites and thus forming a cross-linked grid 485 miles (780 kms) above the Earth, Iridium provides such global telecommunications as telephony, data, and pager services.

Each satellite in the Iridium constellation rotates around the Earth within a period of approximately 100 minutes at one of the six orbital planes of 86.4 degrees inclination. With one global telephone number and an Iridium satellite phone, you can contact anyone on the planet. The satellite’s on-board processor processes calls placed by hand-held subscribers or forwarded by gateways and routes to other Iridium satellites in the constellation or to gateways on the ground. This inter-satellite networking capability and direct access of hand-held subscribers to the satellite is a significant distinguishing feature of the Iridium system.

The system operates at four different links and in four different frequency bands. Each satellite in the constellation is connected by radio transmission to four others at frequencies between 23.18-23.38 GHz. Hand-held users can communicate directly with the satellite in the 1.616-1.626 GHz band. Links between the satellite and ground gateways also operate in 19.4-19.6 GHz (downlink) and 29.1-29.3 GHz (uplink) frequency range. Iridium handsets are dual-mode, working both as a typical cellular telephone and as a satellite telephone. Both TDMA and frequency-division-multiple-access (FDMA) technologies are embedded in the handsets, as in cellular GSM handsets. The satellites are controlled by a master control center located in Lansdowne, Virginia, USA.

Iridium launched its final satellites in early May 1998. The system is now operational and offers a wide variety of services to travelers, aeronautical industries, and military and governmental organizations. It provides voice, facsimile, and data communications for the cockpit and at passenger seats across all aviation segments. According to a recent press release by Stratos, an Iridium service provider, the American government had a contract with it and Hughes Global Services to obtain access to multi-network Iridium satellite services.

Another LEO satellite system that will provide global voice and data services is Globalstar. This system is global in nature, except for the polar regions. It is a constellation of 48 satellites orbiting with a period of 113 minutes in eight circular planes, and is inclined at 52 degrees at an altitude of 879 miles (1,414 kms). Global-star’s satellites are less complicated and cheaper than their Iridium counterparts. They have no on-board processor or intersatellite links (Iridium does), and thus act like well-established reflectors in the sky relaying signals directly to ground gateways. Rather than directly connecting one caller to another by satellite, calls are first routed to gateways and then uplinked to the satellite. The satellite then downlinks this received call to another gateway.

The primary owners of Globalstar are Loral Space and Communications Ltd., and Qualcomm Inc. The system is operated and serviced by 12 telecommunications companies. In order to avoid communication linkage drops, three or four 16-foot to 20-foot (5-meter to 6- meter) dish antennas are installed at Globalstar gateways. Unlike Iridium, Globalstar handsets utilize code-division-multiple-access (CDMA) technology. Globalstar’s unique capability is that signals from three or four visible satellites are combined at the gateways, and the strongest one is chosen to maximize power efficiency and eliminate call interruption. Therefore, satellites will be seamlessly added to and removed from calls in progress, as they are constantly moving in and out of view. So far, Globalstar has put 24 satellites in orbit. “With only two more successful launches of four satellites each, Globalstar will have the coverage required to initiate a regional roll-out of service in September,” says Bernard L. Schwartz, chairman and chief executive officer of Globalstar.

OTHER LITTLE LEOs and MEOs

Other LEOs, notbly Orbcomm and Teledesic, provide such telecommunication services as broadband Internet access, videoconferencing, and multimedia; however, they do not allow phone calls. These satellites are relatively small compared with those of Iridium and Globalstar, and were designed for two-way data communications. Orbcomm is a consortium of Orbital Science Corp., Canada’s Teleglobe Inc., and Malaysia’s Technology Resources Industries Bhd. Orbcomm’s total of 36 little LEOs will travel in two different circular orbits: one is located 460 miles (740 kms) above the Earth with 70 degrees inclination in pair, and the other is located at 523 miles (825 kms) in planes of eight with 45 degrees inclination. The Teledesic system will consist of 288 little LEO satellites in 12 polar orbital planes. It will provide data rates of 64 Mb/s, data rates 2,000 times faster than standard telephone modems. The system’s operation frequency will be 27.5 GHz in the uplink (from user to satellite), and 28.5 GHz in the downlink (from satellite to user). The company plans to start commercial service in 2002. Its investors are Microsoft founder Bill Gates, cellular phone pioneer Craig McCaw, Boeing, and the AT&T Corp.

ICO Global Communications will feature 10 operational MEO satellites located at an altitude of 6,434 miles (10,355 kms) in 45 degrees and 135 degrees inclined orbits. ICO’s ground network will consist of 12 ground stations with multiple antennas distributed strategically around the globe. Its gateways will function in ways similar to those of Global- star. The ICO system will launch its full service in 2000. ICO satellites are derived from an existing Hughes GEO satellite, and are four times heavier than Iridium satellites: 6,063 pounds (2,750 kgs) in orbit. ICO satellites travel more slowly than LEO satellites, thereby reducing the need for frequent handovers from one satellite to another.

Ellipso, an MEO system owned by Mobile Communications Holding Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp., Harris Corp., and three others from Australia and South Africa, will become fully operational in 2001. With 17 satellites in three orbital planes, it can provide almost complete global coverage. Seven equally spaced satellites located above the equator at an altitude of 5,008 miles (8,060 kms) will serve a 25 degrees north and a 55 degrees south latitude region. Another 10 satellites will orbit in two elliptical orbits inclined at 116 degrees. Each satellite will be able to handle 3,000 simultaneous phone calls.

REFERENCES

• Big LEO/MEO/GEO Market and Financial Review (1998).
• Glenister, Simon. “Iridium to Offer Aeronautical Service.” Integrating Global Air Traffic Management, ICAO/ISC (June 1998). (See also: www.
• iridium.com/english/industry/wero/medialarticle_index.html.)
• http://www.globalstar.com.
• http://www.iridium.com.
• Miller, Barry. “Satellites Free the Mobile Phone.” IEEE Spectrum Magazine (March 1998): 26-35.