I have a general rule of "don't feed the trolls" (especially ones that throw a tantrum ten days after first posting because their fellow members haven't rushed off in their spare time to do their research for them!), but I feel I have to chip in.
We are supposed to be a "professional *learned* society" and, while I respect @backintheuk's quest for knowledge, I do fear that he has allowed himself to be led down the bunkum marginalised pseudo-science path of cherry-picked evidence and scare-mongering opinion-pieces, never mind hokum causes based on poor understandings of bio-medical effects. Citing risible conspiracy theories about the US and UK controlling the UN and WHO further reduces credibility, and accusing the independent experts of partiality sounds increasingly desperate. The downside of the Internet allowing everyone a voice is that *you* are then responsible for assessing their credibility - not all opinions are equally valid. A minority counter-view and debate is a sign of science working healthily and well, but if the consensus and balance of expert opinion and credible scientific research says there is no harm, it's incumbent on the minority seeking the paradigm shift (e.g. think Galileo, Newton, Einstein) to present compelling evidence. They haven't.
@haguetim has offered a slew of evidence in support of the "no harm" findings. I'll add more - both informal and referenced - but I acknowledge that people who have already made up and closed their minds to this are unlikely to be swayed regardless of the quality of the evidence.
Intuitively: mobile phones have been around for decades, and previous generations of mobile phone standard have used much higher power levels. Radio itself has been around for over a hundred years, and radio frequencies have been merrily passing through our bodies since we first climbed out of the primordial soup. Radio is pervasive.
A recent episode of the popular BBC1 science programme "Bang Goes The Theory" (Episode 5 of 8, Series 6 as screened on 16 April, on iPlayer currently at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01glqs8)
presented a good depiction of this with the use of light to show received signal levels in a public area. We are all continuously bathed in radio energy of all frequencies from DC-to-daylight with no notable ill-effects. The "Bang Goes The Theory" episode even concluded with the summary that radio waves are not harmful.
As @zerocred notes, if there was some dangerous effect, we'd be seeing the effects already - think of the typical normal/Gaussian distribution: if mobile phones cause some terrible medical condition (I won't feed the trolls by randomly picking one for them to disagree with or to seize upon) then some people (heavy users, susceptible users, etc.) at the leading edge of that bell-shaped curve would be exhibiting it already. But, instead, to take cancer (solely because @backintheuk brought it up): "since the early 1990s, the incidence rates have remained fairly constant" [http://info.cancerresearchuk.o...r-incidence-statistics
- in fact, you could even argue that the rates are in decline. And that's not even taking into account the improved detection and diagnosis, and improved longevity, that we have nowadays that will naturally cause that rate to increase.
However, such informal observations are unscientific, so, secondly, I refer you to peer-reviewed independent reports by the Health Protection Agency and by our own Institution of Engineering and Technology. All show that there is no evidence of harmful effects.
The official Health Protection Agency advice is here: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/R...cFields/MobilePhones/.
It concludes (quoting the IEGMP Stewart Report, an *independent* report into the health effects of mobile phones) "This expert group concluded that there was no clear scientific evidence of harm to health from exposure to mobile phone signals."
The IET offers http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm:
"the balance of scientific evidence to date still does not indicate that harmful effects occur in humans due to low-level exposure to EMFs. This conclusion remains reassuringly the same as that reached in its previous position statements, the last being in May 2010, and has not been substantially altered by the peer-reviewed literature published in the past two years."
Other countries, such as New Zealand and the USA (to pick different arbitrary countries to Sweden) concur, and, at most, offer the same precautionary "just in case, one-in-a-million-chance" advice as the UK.
Even if we discount the profit-motive for perpetually recommending "further research" in such studies, there is always room for further studies and long-term monitoring of the effects of technologies, and any scientist worth his or her salt will keep an open mind to the possibility (no matter how slim) that future research may uncover something. Hence there are precautionary "good practice" steps that are recommended.
The precautionary exposure/SAR levels set by the various world organisations are (to quote Prof. Christopher Davis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland: there is an excellent series of lecture-excerpts by him available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...arI7HY&feature=relmfu)
fifty times below the level at which there are behavioural changes - i.e. the level at which the test subject would say "ooh, that feels a bit warm" and move away - which is, in turn, orders of magnitude below the level at which any harm would be caused. For there to be a biological effect, there needs to be a physical and, in turn, chemical effect. Apart from spouting non-sequitur scary-sounding phrases such as "free radicals" and "melatonin", what peer-reviewed, scientific evidence is there for any such physical effect?
I reiterate - there has been *no* statistical evidence of any adverse effects from mobile phones. Furthermore, there is *no* known biomedical mechanism by which such adverse effects *could* occur.
I've presented both informal evidence (we're not keeling over from mobile phone use despite widespread use) and compelling scientific evidence based on vast epidemiological studies (Stewart Report, IET), along with a reasoned argument. But I fully expect to be dismissed as being an "expert" (a sad reflection on our society that such a label can be used pejoratively), as being forceful and arrogant in my presentation, and all the other /ad hominem/ attacks that @backintheuk has rather rudely made of the other contributors on this thread in his defence of his irrational position. But at least I've tried!
Eur Ing Dr. Russell J. Haines BEng(Hons) CEng FIET SMIEEE SMACM AMRI
IET Bristol Chair, College/Schools Liaison; Publicity; Acting Hon. Sec.http://www.theiet.org/bristol,