Mobile Phone Radiation Free Essay Example

Introduction

Mobile phones had dominated the entire world. Aside from computers, billions of people in every nation around the world also use mobile phones. But why do we enjoy ourselves with that device? What does it have that other things don’t have? Is it bad for us or does it bring advantage to us?

For your information, cell phones or mobile phones are devices that can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link while running around a wide geographic area.

It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile phone operator, allowing access to the public telephone number.

The first hand-held mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchell and Dr. Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing around 2.2 pounds (1kg). In 1983, the DynaTAC 8000x was the first to be commercially available. From 1990 to 2011, worldwide mobile phone subscriptions grow from 12.4 million to over 6 billion, penetrating about 81% of the global population and reaching the bottom of the economic pyramid.

Almost all of the people in the world use this kind of device. But why is that so? What does it bring to people to end up using it by many? Modern mobile phones also support a wide variety of other services. Those billions of subscribers enjoys the device’s text messaging, MMS, email, internet access, short-range wireless communication (infrared, Bluetooth), business application, gaming, media and photography.

So that is why mobile phones are very interesting and enjoyable. Everyone becomes glad everytime we hold our cell phones.

But is there a time that we think about how it affects our lives? Did we ever think about its good and bad effects on us?

Cell phones are made to communicate to other people easier and faster. It is a big help to the western people during the mid 60’s to 80’s. And as time passes by, more features are being developed. These features bring excitement to people especially teens and adolescents. As a result, cell phone addiction occurs to us people.

Cell phone addiction is a very big problem especially to the teens and the youth. People under 17 years of age more likely to do texting than reading their textbooks. It badly affects their grades and some are dropped out of their schools because of their addictiveness. (New York Times, 2007).

Addiction also leads to broken families. Some people doesn’t want to be disturbed when they are so busy using their cell phones. They don’t have enough time to talk and socialize with their families. This is not only for families but also for their friends at the same time.

Mobile phones also bring bad effects to our health. As said to a report in the New York Times and Philippine Star, mobile phones and computers emit a very strong radiation in a wide range of area and can affect all living things in the said area. (P.S, 2009, pp. 1-2) As study says, these radiations can result in changes to the natural environment. It can also damage living organisms’ DNA which can lead to either a gain of ability or loss of life especially in humans. (Science Daily, 2007)

When the first cell phones were made in 1984, there were many health risks. Cell phones emit radiation that could be harmful. No testing had been done prior to releasing these phones to the public. The radiation could possibly lead to brain cancer with long-term use. –Dr. Martin Cooper

Cellular phones give off an electromagnetic energy which is a type of non-ionizing radiation. This is similar to the radiation naturally found in thunderstorms. The RF electromagnetic energy that cellular phones create can penetrate through a body. The main factors for the depth of penetration and how much is absorbed come from how close the phone is held and how strong its signal is.

It is possible that cell phones can cause serious health issues such as cancer, epileptic seizures or sleep disorders, changes in brain activity, and reaction time, but nothing has been definitely proven.

According to BBC, Cell phone users can easily be affected by brain tumors due to the radiations emitted by cell phones. Interestingly, the risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure, meaning tumor on the same side of the brain where phone mostly held.

A laboratory study has shown that radio waves from mobile phones do harm body cells and damage DNA. Studies show that use of cell phones for more than 10 years increase the risk of Glioma. A glioma is a type of tumor that starts in the brain or spine. It is called a glioma because it arises from glial cells. The most common site of gliomas is the brain.

Also, Nickel has been found in quite a few mobile sets. About 30% of UK population is allergic to nickel. Rash breaks out where the skin comes in contact with the cell phone. The effect of mobile phone radiation 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 November 2011, there were more than 5.981 billion subscriptions worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.

The WHO has classified mobile phone radiation on the IARC scale into Group 2B – possibly carcinogenic. That means that there “could be some risk” of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted. Some national radiation advisory authorities have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.

Many scientific studies have investigated possible health symptoms of mobile phone radiation. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. A recent assessment was published in 2007 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). 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”.

Parts of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the human head. The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts. Other digital mobile technologies, such as CDMA2000 and D-AMPS, use lower output power, typically below 1 watt. The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard and by the regulatory agencies in each country. In most systems the cell phone and the base station check 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 energy is absorbed by the human body is measured by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the USA, the Federal 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. It is worth noting that thermal radiation is not comparable to ionizing radiation in that it only increases the temperature in normal matter, it does not break molecular bonds or release electrons from their atoms.

One well-understood effect of microwave radiation is dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced 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 its temperature to 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’s blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow. However, the cornea of the eye does not have this temperature regulation mechanism 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.

Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Persson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of albumin into the brain via a permeated blood–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 vitro cell studies or whole animal studies.

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 (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) 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 between mobile phones and brain tumors. The International Journal of Epidemiology published a combined data analysis from a multinational population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumor. 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 the press release accompanying 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 a statement that: Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumors. 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 tumor 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: *concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population, *continues to 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 *recommends that, 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 a statement that 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 of glioma or meningioma.” • A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that “The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in 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 the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. 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 tumor risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumor by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumor location. Cases examined included glioma, meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds 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, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented what it termed “increasing body of evidence … for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors” and that it “is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking”.This was criticized 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 the induction period 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.”

On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), and found the evidence to be “limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure”. The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period), although no increased risk was found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings. The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be “inadequate”. Some members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the current evidence in humans still as “inadequate”, citing inconsistencies between the assessed studies.

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence did not mirror that increase. 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.

Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling sensations in the skin of the head and extremities,fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot separate the symptoms from nocebo effects. A meta-analysis (2008) of 63 in vitro and in vivo studies from the years 1990–2005 concluded that RF radiation was genotoxic only in some conditions and that the studies reporting positive effects evidenced publication bias.

A meta-study (2009) of 101 publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields showed that 49 reported a genotoxic effect and 42 not. The authors found “ample evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic material of exposed cells in vivo and in vitro and in more than one way.” In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to U.S. government standards. In December 2004, a pan-European study 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 to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division. Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed 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 subjecting in vitro samples of human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.

Not only in our health cell phones affects us but also in our work and studies. Along with their books and school supplies, many students make their daily trip to school with their trusty mobile phone. These pocket-sized tools can do anything from make a standard phone call to surf the web. The presence of cell phones presents a host of options and challenges for today’s students. Mobile phones can be a helpful academic tool, or a hurtful academic disruption depending upon the attitude and use pattern of the student owner. As we have read an article from the Manila Standards Today, mobile phones are undeniably convenient. Because of mobile phones, students never have to look for a pay phone or wonder about the location of a friend. These ubiquitous communication tools allow students to reach their peers and their parents instantly.

Everything from ordering a pizza to calling to check movie times is easier with a cell phone, as the communication device you need is right at your finger tips. Picture-taking and Internet surfing are readily available on most cell phones. This aids students in gathering the information that they need for school or accessing their email or school website. Students benefit from this technology availability as it allows them to create more polished academic products with less effort than before the ready availability of cell phones. Many parents argue that cell phones keep students safe. A parent is never more than a phone call away when a student is carrying their cell phone. The presence of a cell phone also ensures that students can call parents or emergency personnel in the case of an unforeseen emergency.

While most students will never have to use their cell phone as a safety device, the knowledge that it could be used as such puts parents at ease and keeps them paying the monthly cell phone bill. The biggest lament of teachers in regards to cell phones is that they lead to student distraction and off task behavior. Texting a friend is a tempting diversion that many students select over listening to a lecture or completing a class assignment. If not silenced, cell phones can ring during class, drawing everyone’s attention away from the lesson and disrupting the flow of learning. Many teachers worry that this added distraction negatively impacts students’ school performance as it stops them from dedicating their full attention to their studies. While useful, many of the features of cell phones can also be used to engage in inappropriate behaviors. Taking inappropriate pictures and then “sexting” them to a boyfriend or girlfriend is a growing problem.

These pictures often end up in the wrong hands, which leads to others gaining access to the private photos. Teens often fail to recognize the long-term implications of inappropriate behavior and engage in the behavior without considering the consequences. The consequences for inappropriate behavior are real and long-lasting. Once distributed, sexted photos are almost impossible to contain. The presence of these racy photos can limit the teens options in the future and severely mar their reputations. Society has come to a point where the idea of living without cell phones seems ludicrous. Students desire cell phones in order to sustain contact with friends. The parents of students want their children to have them for security purposes. Cell phones carry multiple benefits, but with this technology lies a dualism that teeters precariously between the benefits and negative effects of cell phone usage — especially with students. –Heath Wright Gaby Badre, M.D., Ph.D., of Sahlgren’s Academy in Gothenburg, Sweden conducted research on the affects of cell phone usage on sleep patterns in teens.

The research focused on two groups: a control group of three men and seven women, juxtaposed by a variable group of three men and eight women. When the control group is compared against the variable group, Badre found that teens with excessive cell phone habits exhibit chronic restlessness, a reliance on stimulating drinks, difficulty falling asleep at night, disrupted sleep and an inclination toward fatigue and stress. Children, teens and even young adults are prone to distraction with cell phones. In the classroom and out of school, cell phones provide students an instant network of communication and entertainment. Inside the classroom, students are distracted from the lessons to text, play games and, if they are very daring, call other people. Cell phone ringers, alarms and ring tones disrupt the flow of lessons and the attention of every student in the room and the teacher. According to the National School Safety and Security Services, text messaging can be an aid for cheating students. Also, the camera in a cell phone can be used to photograph exams.

The camera also can be used to photograph other students in a way that is a violation of privacy. In the case of school emergencies, cell phones can prove more of a hindrance than a help. Cell phones have been used to call in bomb threats. In many districts, tracking a cell phone is not easily done. Also, students’ use of cell phones in a school emergency can possibly trigger a real bomb if an explosive device is on the school’s property. Cell phone usage by students during a school emergency can obstruct public safety personnel from controlling the event. Parents can be alerted to the emergency before public safety personnel have a chance to contain the situation. Parents can inadvertently increase the chaos by showing up at an imprudent time. Cell phone systems are prone to overload during a real crisis.

This has been proven during disasters like the World Trade Center attacks and the Columbine shootings. Several students using cell phones all at once can add to the overload and paralyze a system that may be needed by crisis teams, public safety personnel and school administrators. This may in turn magnify the crisis and increase the chance of tragedy. Cell phones can also affect our daily lives. Mobile phones are also known as lifesavers as they can help people in emergencies. If you get stuck in the middle of the road and find no one for help, you can just use a mobile phone and call for help. Mobile phones are comfortable way of communication over a long distance. Along with the obvious convenience and quick access to help in emergencies big and small, mobile phones can be both economical and essential for travelers trying to stay connected.

In Japan, mobile phone companies provide immediate notification of earthquakes and other natural disasters to their customers free of charge. In the event of an emergency, disaster response crews can locate trapped or injured people using the signals from their mobile phones or the small detonator of flare in the battery of every cell phone; an interactive menu accessible through the phone’s Internet browser notifies the company if the user is safe or in distress. We have also been downloading Java games and video clips to our mobile phones. Several online mobile phone shops have come up to cater to this increasing demand for the best mobile phone handsets and the most reliable and cost-effective services in the use of the same. Along with all these advantages there are many disadvantages for mobile phone usage.

Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents. So we need to use hands free sets to avoid such hazards. “The digital age is upon us. And who would have thought it would happen so fast? It seems like only a few years ago when owning a cell phone was a status symbol. Now the device has been marketed as a necessity that we all need to get through the day. In the early days of cell phones I remember that people used to treat them in the same manner that they treated credit cards, only for an emergency. Cell phones used to be very large and were kept in people’s automobiles. Nobody ever seemed to discuss wireless plans, or the capabilities of their phones. The only question people asked were, why did you bring your cordless phone to work? That seemed to be the only other time anybody really saw a phone with that appearance.

It wasn’t until later models that folded for convenience that it caught on. Marketing is a powerful tool along with innovation. Marketing helps get the word out on the new products. I look at it as the worm on the fishing hook, a few people nibble but after many studies they seem to always get us to bite. We eventually do bite, but I am surprised at the quick innovation that seems to occur at a rapid pace every year. As soon as I received my new LG cell phone, it was soon replaced with a sleeker more attractive phone with more technological features. It seems almost too hard to keep up with. All the companies are trying harder and harder for our hard earned dollars. But it is not as if they are holding out as long as they can anymore. Now that the market is in a heated competition between such companies as Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint/Nextel, At&T/Cingular. Many of the companies have combined resources to make forward progress.

When the public thought that phones with color and text capabilities was the best thing since sliced bread, out came phones with internet and navigation on the go. There are live updates for sports, news and other services. You can check movie times prices for a new car or ask how your mother is doing all with one amazing device. The only issue that I seem to have with technology is privacy. There is no more privacy it seems. Every conversation is an open forum or at least it seems that way. It may not be direct but people hear what you talk about, then transfer that conversation and place it into their own which can be a fun debate or a nice way to break the ice. However the rules for doing so are unwritten. You do not simply eves drop and then walk up and approach the person biased on their conversation.

The difficult part also is that you can no longer say that you didn’t receive their text or call. Many companies give the user features or indicators to tell you if the message was successful or not. Short of saying your phone was off there is literally no excuse for not answering a phone The difficult part about the digital age is that there are no rules. We all have our own personal expectations of how people should act in a public setting but that is the most frustrating part. We all want the latest technology, but I do not think that we are ready to accept what we lose because of it. Yes we do gain so many abilities on the go. We are able to do so much now that we never thought was possible in the past. We are all now a part of this technological revolution.

What we forget in all the hustle and bustle is all those things that we lose. In our attempt to have the hottest technology such as the Iphone with the ability to go on to the Internet, watch YouTube at will whenever and wherever we desire. What we lose is the peace and quiet of the past. No longer can you enter a coffee shop people watch, and engage in conversation and listen to some soothing jazz. Those days are long gone, nowadays we have to ask people as a courtesy to turn their phones of, and many people still do not adhere to these requests. No more can you sit in a cozy place such as a café or coffee shop as mentioned above. There is now cell phones buzzing, ringing and the attention is taken away from the environment but into the power we hold in our hands.

The technological age is upon us. And we are able to mold what our society will turn into. I never thought that I made a difference or that I would be a part of a unique generation. If you look around though we are all a part of this new age. We can shape and mold it as we wish. This is only one small aspect of a larger topic. This is how cell phones have made a small step, yet a large impact as a result on how we all life and interact with the world around us. We now look as if we are talking to ourselves, and its funny yet practical.

We complain when others interrupt our dinner, yet at times we are victims of the same crimes we accost others for. Phones have gone from a burden due to size, to a burden due to its functionality and various abilities to do so much. Perhaps Uncle Ben (Spiderman’s uncle) had it right when he said “with great power, comes great responsibility.” I think this is something we should all take the time to think about. How far something you use has come from when you were younger to now and the impact it has made on your life or the lives of others.” (RaMediaNJ, 08/08/2007, Newsweek)

Bibliography
• http://www.wikipedia.com/ wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health •”Hands-free Cellphones are Safer” Manila Standards Today, Manila,
Philippines (Aug. 2000): pp. 1-2 •”Hands-free kits cut cellphone radiation” Malaya (Aug. 2000): p. 13 •”Texting than Reading” Philippine Star (Feb. 2003): p. B5 • http://thinkquest.org/pls/html/think.library

•“MMS vs. Cheaters” Philippine Star, Manila, Philippines (Feb. 2003) •New York Times, NY, USA (Mar. 2007)
•“Owners of Older Cell Phones risk Brain Tumor” USA Today, National Cancer Institute •”Pinoys as Romantic” Philippine Star (Aug. 2010) pp. 3-4 •Horst, Heather . Miller, Daniela. The Cellphone: An Anthropology of Communication, Berg (Oct. 2006) •Agar, J. (2003). Constant Touch: A Global History of the Mobile Phone. Cambridge, Icon Books.