Advertisement

Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 158, Issue 1–2, pp 36–41 | Cite as

Mobile phones: are children at higher risk?

  • Norbert Leitgeb
Übersichten

Summary

The use of mobile phones by children has in recent years been increasing, the onset starting earlier and earlier. This has led to concern about whether children might be at higher risk and whether mobile phone use should even be forbidden. Advice from highly reputed committees on both national and international levels is contradictory and on the whole more confusing than helpful to worried parents and physicians, but this can be explained. It is shown here that different opinions derived from the same database reflect the different way in which uncertainty of knowledge is dealt with. Based on the assessments of the international committee and established knowledge on children's development it can be concluded that existing exposure limits do in fact provide reasonable safety. Compared to adults, however, children do in fact need to be considered at a relatively higher potential risk, depending on their phase of development. If adults are adviced to minimise their exposure, this is even more justified for children. However, circular reasoning must be avoided: the uncertainty-triggered application of precaution must not be misinterpreted as evidence for definite risk.

Keywords

Health risk assessment Electromagnetic fields Precaution Biologic development Recommendations 

Mobiltelefone: Ist das Risiko für Kinder größer?

Zusammenfassung

In den vergangenen Jahren hat die Benutzung von Mobiltelefonen durch Kinder immer mehr zugenommen, wobei der Nutzungsbeginn immer früher erfolgt. Dies führte zu Befürchtungen, dass Kinder einem höheren Risiko ausgesetzt sein könnten und ihnen die Benützung daher sogar verboten werden sollte. Empfehlungen von angesehenen nationalen und internationalen Komitees sind widersprüchlich und daher insgesamt für besorgte Eltern und Ärzte mehr verwirrend als hilfreich, aber dies kann erklärt werden. Es wird gezeigt, dass die unterschiedlichen Meinungen von derselben Datenlage abgeleitet werden und die unterschiedliche Art widerspiegeln, wie mit Unsicherheiten des Wissens umgegangen wird. Nach den Einschätzungen der internationalen Komitees und dem gesicherten Wissen über die Entwicklung von Kindern kann geschlossen werden, dass die bestehenden Grenzwerte einen ausreichenden Schutz gewährleisten. Im Vergleich zu den Erwachsenen sind jedoch Kinder je nach ihrem Alter einem relativ höheren potentiellen Risiko ausgesetzt. Wenn daher Erwachsenen empfohlen wird, ihre Exposition zu minimieren, so ist das für Kinder umso mehr gerechtfertigt. Ein Zirkelschluss muss jedoch vermieden werden: Die in der Ungewissheit begründete Vorsorge darf nicht als Beweis für das Bestehen eines realen Risikos missverstanden werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Risikobewertung Vorsorgeprinzip Biologische Entwicklung Empfehlungen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Stewart W (2000) Mobile phones and health. NRPB/IEGMP report, DidcotGoogle Scholar
  2. Zmirou D (2001) Mobile phones, their basestations and health. Report, Direction Generale de la Santé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. NRPB (2004) Mobile phones and health 2004. Documents of NRPB vol. 15 (5)Google Scholar
  4. GR (2005) Electromagnetic fields: Annual Update 2005. Gezondheidsraad, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  5. FDA (2005) Response to NRPB report on mobile telephones and health. FDA Cellphone facts, http://fda.gov/cellphones
  6. WHO (2002) Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields. WHO publication, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. WHO (2005) Children and mobile phones: Clarification Statement. WHO EMF Project, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  8. Vienna Medical Association (2005) Strahlende Informationen (Radiating Information). Leaflet, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  9. OSR (2005) Viewpoints to actual assessment of mobile telecommunication health risks. OSR Recommendation, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. WHO (2006) Framework guiding public health policy options in areas of scientific uncertainty. WHO publication, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. NBOSH, NBHBP, NESB, NBHW, RPI (1996) Low-frequency electrical and magnetical fields: The precautionary principle for national authorities. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  12. NISV (1999) Protection from nonionising radiation. Ordinance to the Environmental Protection Law. BernGoogle Scholar
  13. EU Commission (2001) The applicability of the precautionary principle. Communication COM (1)Google Scholar
  14. IARC (2002) Non-ionizing radiation, part 1: Static and Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. IARC Monographs, Lyon, Vol 80Google Scholar
  15. Lai H, Singh NP (1995) Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16: 207–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meltz HL (2003) Radiofrequency exposure and mammalian cell toxicity, genotoxicity and transformation. Bioelectromagnetics (Suppl 6): S196–S213Google Scholar
  17. Vijayalaxmi, Obe G (2004) Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 162: 481–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan V, Finnie J, Harris AW (1997) Lymphomas in Eu.Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Mutation Res 147: 631–640Google Scholar
  19. Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Strube WL, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL (1997) Measurement of DNA Damage After Exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation. Radiat Res 148: 608–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rüdiger H: Non-thermal DNA Breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1.800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res 583(2): 178–183Google Scholar
  21. BfS (2005) Stellungnahme zum Abschlussbericht des REFLEX- Forschungsverbundes (5. EU-Rahmenprogramm). German Federal Office of Radiation Protection, http://www.bfs.de/elektro/papiere
  22. HPA (2004) Mobile phone and cancer. http://www.hpa.uk.org.uk/hpa/news
  23. Speit G, Schutz P, Hofmann H (2007) Genotoxic effects of exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) in cultured mammalian cells are not independently reproducible. Mutat Res 626(1–2): 42–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. SSK (2007) Wirkungen hochfrequenter Felder auf das Genom: Genotoxizität und Genregulation. Reports of the German Commission of Radiation Protection, in pressGoogle Scholar
  25. ICNIRP (1998) Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74: 494–522Google Scholar
  26. BfS (2006) Handy-SAR-Werte. http://www.bfs.de
  27. EU (2004) Directive on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields). EU Directive 2004/40/EGGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiedemann P, Schütz H (2005) The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect 113(4): 402–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Sounders R, van Deventer E (2004) The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics 116: 303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogden CL, Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Guo S, Wei R, Grummer-Strawn LM, Curtin LR, Roche AF, Johnsson CL (2002) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts for the United States: Improvements to the 1977 National Center of Health Statistics Version. Pediatrics 109: 45–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Clinical EngineeringGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations