Advertisement

The Great Debate on Wireless Technology

  • Susan Perry
  • Claudia Roda
Chapter

Abstract

As the progress of mobile phone technology accelerates worldwide, the regulatory framework necessary for its safe and extended use has been slow to develop. The hardware delivery of wireless phone technology poses new challenges to our understanding of human rights. This chapter analyses the relationship between scientific knowledge and regulation concerning the health effects of increasing electromagnetic field emissions from mobile phone towers (base transceiver stations). From a conservationist perspective, no other example of industrial impact on the natural environment has achieved such extended penetration so quickly. This presents an ethical conundrum: stakeholders are faced with the difficult choice between waiting for a comprehensive, long-term assessment of health impacts from electromagnetic exposure and immediate application of the precautionary principle. By exploring examples of interaction between citizens, governments, and international bodies, we first analyse the challenges faced by regulators in the presence of uncertain scientific knowledge and standards of measurement. We then highlight the inadequacy of current parameters. Lastly, we expand the debate on how we may use a human rights framework to protect vulnerable populations from digital pollution. We conclude that, because scientific knowledge on the health effects of wireless technology delivery is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law.

Keywords

Mobile Phone Precautionary Principle Federal Communication Commission Acoustic Neuroma Telecom Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Abdel-Rassoul G., El-Fateh O., Salem M., Michael A., Farahat F., El-Batanouny M., Salem E. (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology, 28(2), 434–440.Google Scholar
  2. Abeille, L. (2015). Exposition aux ondes électromagnétiques: deuxième lecture, Assemblée nationale, XIVe législature, Session ordinaire de 2014–2015, Compte rendu intégral, Première séance du jeudi 29 janvier 2015, p. 5. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr (home page).
  3. Abelin, T., Altpeter, E., & Röösli, M. (2005). Sleep disturbances in the vicinity of the short-wave broadcast transmitter Schwarzenburg. Somnologie, 9(4), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agarwal A., Desai N., Makker K., Varghese A., Mouradi R., Sabanegh E., Sharma R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in-vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325.Google Scholar
  5. Agence France-Presse. (2015). L’électrosensibilité reconnue comme handicap par la justice. Le Figaro. Retrieved August 26, 2015, from http://sante.lefigaro.fr (home page).
  6. Agence Nationale des Fréquences. (2016). Cartoradio. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.cartoradio.fr/cartoradio/web/.
  7. Aldad T., Gan G., Gao X., Taylor H. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Nature Scientific Reports, 2. Article 312.Google Scholar
  8. Aslan A., Atay T., Gulle K., Kırdemir V., Ozden A., Comlekci S., Aydogan N. (2013). Effect of 900 MHz electromagnetic fields emitted from cellular phones on fracture healing: An experimental study on rats. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 47(4), 273–280.Google Scholar
  9. Axelson, O. (2004). Negative and non-positive epidemiological studies. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 17(1), 115–121.Google Scholar
  10. Aydin, D., et al. (2011). Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: A multicenter case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(16), 1264–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baan R., Grosse Y., Lauby-Secretan B., El Ghissassi F., Bouvard V., Benbrahim-Tallaa L., et al. on Behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. (2011). Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology, 12, 624–626.Google Scholar
  12. Belyaev, I. Y. (2010). Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: Implications for reproducibility and safety standards. European Journal of Oncology, 5, 187–217.Google Scholar
  13. Bioinitiative Report. (2007). A rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.bioinitiative.org (home page).
  14. Bioinitiative Report. (2012). A rationale for biologically-based public exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.bioinitiative.org (home page).
  15. Bioinitiative Working Group Comments. (2014). Comments on 2014 SCENIRH preliminary opinion on potential health effects of EMF. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.bioinitiative.org (home page).
  16. Blackman, C. (2009). Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. Pathophysiology, 16, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blair A., Stewart P., Lubin J., Forastiere F. (2007). Methodological issues regarding confounding and exposure misclassification in epidemiological studies of occupational exposures. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50, 199–207.Google Scholar
  18. Blank, M., & Goodman, R. (2009). Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiology, 16, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Blank, M., & Goodman, R. (2011). DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 87, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Böschen, S., Böschen, S., Kastenhofe K., Rust I., Soentgen J., Wehling P. (2010). Scientific non knowledge and its political dynamics: The cases of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 783–811.Google Scholar
  21. Brandt, A. (2007). The cigarette century: The rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Brigaudeau, C. (2012, February 20). Ils disent non à l’antenne-relais. Le Parisien.Google Scholar
  23. Byun, Y. H., Ha , M., Kwon, H., Hong, Y., Leem, J., Sakong, J., et al. (2013). Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: A longitudinal study. PLoS One, 8(3), e59742.Google Scholar
  24. Chen, Q., et al. (2013). A meta-analysis on the relationship between exposure to ELF-EMFs and the risk of female breast cancer. PLoS One, 8(7), e69272.Google Scholar
  25. Christ, A., Gosselin M., Christopoulou M., Kühn S., Kuster N. (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55, 1767.Google Scholar
  26. Code de l’Urbanisme. (2012). Art. R111-21, Légifrance. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr (home page).
  27. Commissariat Générale au Développement Durable. (2009). Annual report to parliament on implementing France’s environmental roundtable commitments. Ministère de l’Ecologie, de l’Energie, du Développement durable et de la Mer.Google Scholar
  28. Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2013). General comment no. 16 on state obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.Google Scholar
  29. Consales, C., Merla, C., Marino, C.,Benassi, B., (2012). Electromagnetic fields, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration. International Journal of Cell Biology, 2012, 1–16.Google Scholar
  30. Council of European Communities. (1983). Council directive 83/447/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. European Commission. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://ec.europa.eu (home page).
  31. Cour d’Appel de Versailles. (8/09/2010). SAS Adia c/ comité d’entreprise de la Société Adia, 14ème chambre, Arret No. 324.Google Scholar
  32. Crawford, S. (2013). Captive audience: The telecom industry and monopoly power in the new gilded age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W., Vijver, M., Peijnenburg, W., Bolte, J., de Snoo, G. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116–140.Google Scholar
  34. Davis, D. (2010). Disconnect: The truth about cell phone radiation, what the industry has done to hide it, and how to protect your family. New York: Dutton Adult.Google Scholar
  35. Davis, D., Kesari S., Soskolne, C., Miller, A., Stein Y. (2013). Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology, 20(2), 123–129.Google Scholar
  36. Direction Générale de la Prévention des Risques du Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Energie et al. (2013). Diminution de l’exposition aux ondes électromagnétique émises par les antennes-relais de téléphonie mobile, Rapport de Synthèse des Experimentations du COPIC. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/document138630
  37. Divan, H. A., Kheifets, L., Obel, C., Olsen, J. (2008). Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology, 19, 523–529.Google Scholar
  38. Divan, H., Kheifets, L., Obel, C., Olsen, J. (2012). Cell phone use and behavioral problems in young children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 524–529.Google Scholar
  39. Erren, T. C. (2001). A meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of electric and magnetic fields and breast cancer in women and men. Bioelectromagnetics, 22(Suppl. 5), S105–S119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Essick, K. (2001). Guns, money and cell phones. The Industry Standard Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/442/guns-money-and-cell-phones
  41. European Parliament. (2003). Directive 2003/18/EC. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu (home page).
  42. Feychting, M., & Forssen, U. (2006). Electromagnetic fields and female breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control, 17(4), 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Foliart, D. E., Pollock, B. H., Mezei, G ., Iriye,R .,Silva, J, M.,Ebi, K. L.,et al. (2006). Magnetic field exposure and long-term survival among children with leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer, 94(1), 161–164.Google Scholar
  44. Fragopoulou, Grigoriev, Y., Johansson, O., Margaritis, L.H., Morgan, L., Richter, E., Sage, C. (2010). Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Reviews on Environmental Health, 25(4), 307–317.Google Scholar
  45. Gaestel, M. (2010). Biological monitoring of non-thermal effects of mobile phone radiation: Recent approaches and challenges. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 85(3), 489–500.Google Scholar
  46. Geneva Convention on Road Traffic. (1949). United Nations treaty collections. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from https://treaties.un.org (home page).
  47. Georgiou, C. D. (2010). Oxidative stress-induced biological damage by low-level EMFs: Mechanism of free radical pair electron spin polarization and biochemical amplification. European Journal of Oncology, 5, 63–113.Google Scholar
  48. Gollier, C. (2001). Should we beware of the precautionary principle? Economic Policy, 16(33), 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gutschi, T., Mohamad Al-Ali, B., Shamloul, R., Pummer, K., Trummer, H. (2011). Impact of cell phone use on men’s semen parameters. Andrologia, 43(5), 312–316.Google Scholar
  50. Hagström, M., Auranen, J., & Ekman, R. (2013). Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology, 20(2), 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Han, Y., Gandhi, O. P., DeSalles, A., Herberman, R. B., Davis, D. L. (2010). Comparative assessment of models of electromagnetic absorption of the head for children and adults indicates the need for policy changes. European Journal of Oncology, 5, 103.Google Scholar
  52. Hansson, B., Thors, B., & Törnevik, C. (2011). Analysis of the effect of mobile phone base station antenna loading on localized SAR and its consequences for measurements. Bioelectromagnetics, 32(8), 664–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., & Hansson Mild, K. (2005). Case-control study on cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000–2003. Neuroepidemiology, 25(3), 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., & Hansson Mild, K. (2013). Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology, 20(2), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hayes, K., & Burge, R. (2003). Coltan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo: How tantalum-using industries can commit to the reconstruction of the DRC. Cambridge: Fauna & Flora International, NHBS.Google Scholar
  56. Heaven v. Pender. (1883). Trading as West India Graving Dock Company, 11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  57. House of Representatives. (1993a). Children’s electromagnetic field risk reduction Act, 1st Session, 103rd Congress, H.R. 1494, The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.loc.gov (home page).
  58. House of Representatives. (1993b). Electromagnetic Labeling Act, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 1665, The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.loc.gov (home page).
  59. House of Representatives. (2012). Cell Phone Right to Know Act, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 6358, Library of Congress. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.loc.gov (home page).
  60. Hug, K., Roosli, M., & Rapp, R. (2006). Magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative diseases—recent epidemiological studies. Sozial und Praventivmedizin, 51(4), 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Huss, Jean. (2011). Document 12608: The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Council of Europe. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.coe.int (home page).
  62. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (1999). C95.1–1999 IEEE Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.ieee.org (home page).
  63. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2005). C95.1–2005—IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.ieee.org
  64. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2011). IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Lyon, France: World Health Organization. Press release No. 208.Google Scholar
  65. International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 4(4), 494–522.Google Scholar
  66. International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. (2009a). Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (100 kHz–300 GHz). INCPR. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.icnirp.org (home page).
  67. International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. (2009b). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 97(3), 11.Google Scholar
  68. International Telecommunication Union. (2016). The world in 2015: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from http://www.itu.int (home page).
  69. de Jong, A., Wardekker, J. A., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2012). Assumptions in quantitative analyses of health risks of overhead power lines. Environmental Science & Policy, 16(10), 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kheifets, L., Ahlbom, A., Crespi, C. M., Draper, G., Hagihara, J., Lowenthal, R. M.,et al. (2010). Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer, 103(7), 1128–1135.Google Scholar
  71. Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(3), 263–267.Google Scholar
  72. Kluger, R. (1996). Ashes to ashes: America’s hundred-year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of Philip Morris. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  73. Knopf, A., & Glantz, S. (1996). The cigarette papers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kostoff, R. N., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2013). Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1331–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. La Vignera, S., Condorelli, R. A., Vicari, E., D'Agata, R., Calogero, A. E. (2012). Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: A review of the literature. Journal of Andrology, 33(3), 350–356.Google Scholar
  76. Levis, A. G., Minicuci, N., Ricci, P., Gennaro, V., Garbisa, S. (2011). Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies—How do they arise? Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 10, 59.Google Scholar
  77. Levitt, B., & Lai, H. (2010). Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Review, 18(1), 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Li, D. K., Ferber, J. R., Odouli, R., Quesenberry, Jr C. P. (2012). A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Nature Scientific Reports 2. Article 540.Google Scholar
  79. Loi no. 2015-136 du 9 février 2015 relative à la sobriété, à la transparence, à l’information et à la concertation en matière d’exposition aux ondes électromagnétiques (Loi Abeille), JORF no 0034 du 10 février 2015, page 2346, texte no 1.Google Scholar
  80. Lowenthal, R. M., Tuck, D. M., & Bray, I. C. (2007). Residential exposure to electric power transmission lines and risk of lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders: A case-control study. Internal Medicine Journal, 37(9), 614–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Maussion, C. (2011, October 19). 4G: la suspension des antennes irrite Besson. Liberation. Google Scholar
  82. Merhi, Z. O. (2012). Challenging cell phone impact on reproduction: A review. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 29(4), 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mettler, S. (2010). Reconstituting the submerged state: The challenges of social policy reform in the Obama era. Perspectives on Politics, 8(3), 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo Gobierno de Chile. (2012). Entra en vigencia ley que regula instalación de torres para antenas celulares con nuevas facultades para municipios y mayor protección de la salud. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_det_20120611132909.aspx
  85. Montague, D. (2002, Winter–Spring). Stolen goods: Coltan and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. SAIS Review, 22(1), 103–118.Google Scholar
  86. O’Connor, E. (2013, February 20). Statement to European Commission stakeholder dialogue group. Brussels: EM Radiation Research Trust, European Commission.Google Scholar
  87. Otitoloju, A. A., Obe, I. A., Adewale, O. A., Otubanjo, O. A., Osunkalu, V. O. (2010). Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from global system for mobile communication base stations. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 84(1), 51–54.Google Scholar
  88. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2011). Analyzing the health impacts of modern telecommunications microwaves. Advances in Medicine and Biology, 17, 1–54.Google Scholar
  89. Panagopoulos, D. J., & Margaritis, L. H. (2010). The effect of exposure duration on the biological activity of mobile telephony radiation. Mutation Research, 699(1–2), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Parliamentary Assembly. (2011). Resolution 1815: On the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Council of Europe. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.coe.int (home page).
  91. Perry, S. (2015). L’Illusion Pixel. Paris: Lemieux Éditeur.Google Scholar
  92. Perry, S., Roda, C., & Carlson, K. (2012). Submission to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child. In preparation for the general comment on the rights of the child and the business sector, Committee on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/callsubmissionsCRC_BusinessSector.htm
  93. Peyman, Gabriel, C., Grant, E. H., Vermeeren, G., Martens, L. (2009). Variation of the dielectric properties of tissues with age: The effect on the values of SAR in children when exposed to walkie-talkie devices. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 54(2), 227–241.Google Scholar
  94. Posner, E. (2014). The twilight of human rights law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Proctor, R. (2012). Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  96. Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environmental Science and Policy, 37, 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ruggie, J. (2011). United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.org (home page).
  98. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. (2015). Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. European Commission. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu (home page).
  99. Shahbazi-Gahrouei, D., Karbalae, M., Moradi, H. A., Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi, M. (2014). Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station (BTS) antennae: A report from Isfahan, Iran. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 33(3), 206–201.Google Scholar
  100. Smith, A. (2014). Westporters rally against cellphone tower proposed for residential area. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://westport.dailyvoice.com (home page).
  101. Smith, E. F. (2010, Winter). Right to remedies and the inconvenience of Forum Non Conveniens: Opening U.S. courts to victims of corporate human rights abuses. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 44, 145.Google Scholar
  102. Sommer, C., Stadtfeld, M., Murphy, G. J., Hochedlinger, K., Kotton, D. N,, Mostoslavsky, G. (2009). Induced pluripotent stem cell generation using a single lentiviral stem cell cassette. Stem Cells, 27(3), 543–549.Google Scholar
  103. Stop Smart Meter. (2014). Some PG&E customs getting fees reversed as CPUC endlessly delays smart meter “Opt Out” decision. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://stopsmartmeters.org (home page).
  104. Sudan, M., Kheifets,L., Arah, O., Olsen, J., Zeltzer, L. (2012). Prenatal and postnatal cell phone exposures and headaches in children. The Open Pediatric Medicine Journal, 6, 46–52.Google Scholar
  105. Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Tribunal des Conflits (14/05/2012) C3848, Publié au recueil Lebon, Legifrance.Google Scholar
  108. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science: New Series, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Children and cell phones. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116331.htm
  110. United Nations Commission on Human Rights. (2004). Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, Panel Discussion, 60th Session.Google Scholar
  111. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49, entered into force 2 September 1990.Google Scholar
  112. Valentini, E., Curcio, G., Moroni, F., Ferrara,M., De Gennaro, L., Bertini, M. (2010). Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychomotor effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 67(10), 708–716.Google Scholar
  113. Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. (1968). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from http://www.unece.org
  114. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, U.S. No. 58 (1980), reprinted in I.L.M. 679 (1969), entered into force, 27 January 1980.Google Scholar
  115. Ville de Paris. (2003). Charte relative aux antennes relais de téléphonie mobile, Au sens de l’article 1 du décret n° 2002-775 du 3 mai 2002.Google Scholar
  116. Ville de Paris. (2012). Charte relative à la téléphonie mobile, Au sens de l’article 1 du décret n° 2002-775 du 3 mai 2002.Google Scholar
  117. Wiart, J., Hadjem, A., Wong, M. F., Bloch, I. (2008). Analysis of RF exposure in the head tissues of children and adults. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 53(13), 3681–3695.Google Scholar
  118. World Health Organization. (2012). Electromagnetic fields: Current standards. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.who.int (home page).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Perry
    • 1
  • Claudia Roda
    • 1
  1. 1.American University of ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations