How Cellular Radiation Impacts Human Health and the Environment

Introduction 

In 2011, only 35% of all Americans had smartphones, but now in 2020, 61% of all Americans have smartphones (Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States, 2020). It is evident that technology has become increasingly more prevalent in everyday human life, yet few conclusive studies have been done showcasing the effects of cellular radiation on human health and the environment. Different types of ionizing radiation have been shown to significantly impact fields in human health such as oncology and polymer science, however many individuals do not see radiation as something that directly affects them or the environment on a daily basis. This is a dangerous misconception that could lead to detrimental consequences in the near future for both humans who use technology on a daily basis and the environment. In order to bring awareness to the dangers of radiation in a world that is becoming increasingly more technology dependent, I hope to relate cell phone usage in young adults to possible human health risks such as exposure to dangerous radiation as well as examine the impact that this radiation has on the local environment. I predict that most young adults are not aware of the amount of radiation they are exposed to everyday through their cell phones or how this radiation can lead to detrimental consequences for both human health and the environment.  

Radio frequency radiation, commonly known as RFR, is the kind of radiation that cell phones and cell phone towers produce. On the Electromagnetic Spectrum, RFR falls in between microwaves and radio waves, under non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation is a type of radiation that cannot directly damage cells on its own and therefore is deemed acceptable for humans to be exposed to on a regular basis (Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones, 2020). RFR signals are strongest near cell towers and can bound from these towers into the surrounding environment or onto the people who live near cell towers (Cell Phone Towers, 2020). There are currently 7 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) registered cell towers in Bloomington, Indiana, over 20 cell towers in total, and over 358 antenna towers (Cell Tower and Signal Map, 2020). Fifth generation (5G) cellular networks are becoming increasingly popular in America. 5G allows larger amounts of information to be delivered to devices faster through higher frequencies than 3G or 4G LTE networks. Although 5G sounds great, it might be too good to be true due to the fact that more cell phone towers will be needed throughout communities and the environment to support this super fast and efficient cellular network (Cell Phone Towers, 2020). The addition of cell towers and the implementation of 5G in America will indefinitely lead to RFR radiation being closer to home, which is exactly the reason why we should be studying RFR and determining the possible consequences it has for human health and the environment.

Even though there is no global consensus on whether or not RFR causes human health problems, many studies around the world have been done showcasing the different possible consequences. In Swedish and French RFR control studies, close contact cell phone usage was shown to increase the risk of getting certain types of brain tumors (Hardell, 2015).  Research on the human health effects of RFR have shown that RFR is a possible carcinogen (IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 1970). RFR is absorbed by the body fastest when the cell phone antenna, which in smartphones are stored in the cell phone body, are held to the body’s tissue. Children’s skulls are over 10 times thinner than adults meaning that  RFR has higher absorption rates in the bodily tissue of children as compared to adults (Miller, 2018). Children however, are not the only individuals at risk. Men who keep their cell phones in their pockets have had lower sperm count, motility, and morphology, therefore, RFR could be causing a decline in fertility (Miller, 2019). Several other probable human health effects due to RFR have been studied and discovered, however research on how RFR impacts the environment has been more conclusive and definitive. 

Although consensus on whether or not RFR has any dangerous impact on human health has not been reached, most researchers do believe that RFR is impacting different aspects of the environment worldwide. Over 40% of bird species globally are under critical threat possibly due to RFR (Environment and Wildlife Effects, 2020). Studies in India have specifically seen patterns in declining and deteriorating bird species living near cell towers (Misra, 2015). Bird’s feathers can act as antennas and amplify the negative effects of RFR which might be why we are seeing such a large decline in bird populations globally. Birds however, are not the only species being affected. RFR has been shown to impact bumblebee development and mating success (Odemer, 2019). Different studies that the distance from cell towers has an impact on tree development and growth (Waldmann-Selsam, 2016). Even with these three species and many  more being impacted by RFR, the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 which is still in effect states that one does not have to consider the environment when placing cell towers (Telecommunications Act of 1996, 2014). 

Methods

A research paper was published in 2015 detailing the guidelines for research on the effects of radiation on living organisms. The guidelines suggested I begin my methodology research on radiation by performing my own experimental research and by combining that with the research of other published scientists on the topic (Redlarski, 2015). Based on the guidelines, I planned to test my hypothesis, achieve my objectives, and answer my questions in the form of experimental research by conducting an electronic survey of young adults. I used young adults because Bloomington, Indiana is a college town where there is a large number of young adults specifically between the age range of 18 to 23. The type of survey that I conducted is considered by research to be an explanatory survey. Explanatory surveys are used to explain hypotheses and present primarily quantitative data (Lau, 2017). My survey was also a type of probability sampling known as randomized sampling. Basically, this means that I sent out my google survey to as many people as possible in order to try to obtain the most amount of data I possibly could. The survey was sent to students via large classes that I was in, as well as large groups I had participated in. None of the people taking the survey were specifically chosen to do so. My survey instrument was google survey. The survey consisted of 12 questions:

1. Are you an IU student living in the Bloomington area? 
2. Are you age 18-23?
3. Do you have a cell phone?
4. Do you use your cell phone every day? 
5. If you have a cell phone, is your cell phone a smartphone?
6. How close are you on average to your cell phone during the day?
7. How close are you on average to your cell phone at night when you sleep?
8. Do you know where the nearest cell phone tower is in Bloomington?
9. How far away are you from the nearest cell phone tower? 
10. Do you use more than one electronic device everyday?  (Ex: TV, computer, etc)
11. Did you know that cell phones and other electronic devices emit radiation that could have harmful effects on human health?
12. Did you know that cell phones and other electronic devices emit radiation that could have harmful effects on the environment? 

I used this survey to gather information on just how much students not only use their cell phones but how much they use other technology that produces radiation. I decided to use a survey to gather this information because several studies done on the effects of cell phone usage on human health have also used surveys to gather their data such as Negi and Godiyal did in 2016 (Shoukat, 2019). Next, I developed search strategies to find publicational research that includes analysis of cell phone usage and its relationship to human health and the environment just as described by Sara Thomée in her 2018 study (Thomée, 2018). One of my search strategies was searching for keywords like cell-phone radiation and health risks, which led me to a study on the risks to health from radiation emitted by cellphones. This study compared and contrasted the majority of the publicational research put forth by reputable sources about the issue of cell phone radiation and its effects on human health and the environment (Miller, 2019). Therefore I used the analysis provided in this study in order to achieve what the guidelines for a methodology section on this topic suggested: experimental research and a combination of publicational research from other scientists on the topic.  

Results

75 young adults, ages 18-23, residing in Bloomington, Indiana answered the survey. Of these 75 young adults, all had not only cell phones, but smartphones, that they used daily. All 75 of these young adults use more than one electronic device everyday such as a TV or a computer. 98.7% of all the young adults did not know where the nearest cell tower was. Fascinatingly enough, when I asked the two very similar questions,

1. Did you know that cell phones and other electronic devices emit radiation that could have harmful effects on human health?
2. Did you know that cell phones and other electronic devices emit radiation that could have harmful effects on the environment?

14.7% of people said that they did not know radiation could have harmful effects on human health but over 34% of people said that they did not know radiation could have harmful effects on the environment. No respondents thought about how radiation impacts their lives on an every day basis or were more than several feet from their smartphones throughout the day.

Discussion

The survey results were extremely fascinating to me, especially when seeing the difference in the percentage of young adults who knew radiation had harmful effects on human health as opposed to the environment. These survey results led me to believe that young adults are more informed about radiation as it pertains to human health then how it impacts the environment. This is perplexing because although scientists have not discovered a definitive link between cell phone radiation and human health, scientists have definitively discovered many instances in which RFR has hurt the environment as previously discussed. Knowing that 34.7% of young adults who answered my survey did not know cellular radiation harms the environment, I am confident that my final project will help further educate students on these invisible but important issues. The most interesting results that my survey gathered was that the majority of teenagers spend all 24 hours of the day less than a mere foot away from their smartphones. 

 

I took photos around my apartment complex of young adults on their phones. Low and behold, in each photo I took, the individual’s phones were inches away from them and one young adult even had two electronic devices inches away. The young adults in the photos were all in the same room. It would be fascinating to photograph large groups of young adults on their electronic devices in the future, but due to the pandemic, I was not able to find any large groups of young adults on their phones. 

Conclusion

My research was not able to prove or disprove that cellular radiation definitively affects human health and the environment, but it did shed light on the fact that radiation in our technology driven world is impacting our everyday lives without much thought about it from young adults. Data collection for future research on cellular radiation and its effects should begin to be collected now, through longitudinal studies, so that if the first generation of young adults that grew up using technology begin to show health problems, possible links to cellular radiation can be discovered and solutions to it improved upon quickly. If the human race is going to continue to be so dependent on technology that requires radiation for its usage, we also need to be informed of the possible consequences of our actions in order to protect ourselves to the best of our ability. This awareness begins locally, in Bloomington, Indiana with me and this final project.  

Works Cited 

1. CellMapper. (n.d.). Cellular Tower and Signal Map. Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://www.cellmapper.net/map
2. Cell Phone Towers. (2020, June 1). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html
3. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2020, February 10). Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/radio-frequency-radiation-and-cell-phones
4. Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States. (2020, June 05). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
5. Environment and Wildlife Effects. (2020, December 05). Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/
6. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology. (2015) 22:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001
7. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. (1970, January 01). Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/
8. Lau, F. (2017, February 27). Chapter 13 Methods for Survey Studies. Retrieved November 19, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481602/
9. Miller, A., Sears, M., Morgan, L., Davis, D., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. (2019, August 13). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/
10. Misra, S. S. (2015, July 04). Cell phone tower radiation a pollutant: MoEF panel. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/cell-phone-tower-radiation-a-pollutant-moef-panel–34417
11. Odemer R, Odemer F. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 661:553–62. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.154
12. Redlarski, G., Lewczuk, B., Żak, A., Koncicki, A., Krawczuk, M., Piechocki, J., . . . Gradolewski, D. (2015, February 25). The influence of electromagnetic pollution on living organisms: Historical trends and forecasting changes. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355556/
13. Shoukat, S. (2019, February 4). Cell phone addiction and psychological and physiological health in adolescents. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6449671/
14. Telecommunications Act of 1996. (2014, December 30). Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
15. Thomée, S. (2018, November 29). Mobile Phone Use and Mental Health. A Review of the Research That Takes a Psychological Perspective on Exposure. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6314044/ 
16. Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Plante A, Breunig H, BalmoriA. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. (2016) 572:554–69. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045