Addressing EMF Concerns and Environmental Sustainability in Mobile Communications

Mobile Communications: Addressing
Electromagnetic Field Concerns and
Environmental Sustainability
Jack Rowley, PhD,
Senior Director Research & Sustainability
GSM Association
IIT Delhi, India
9 January 2014

© GSM Association 2014
J. Rowley, January 2014

The GSMA in numbers


1

Contents


Growing demand for mobile communications



Electromagnetic fields:
–
–



Environmental topics:
–
–
–



Concerns about using mobile phones.
Concerns about living near masts.

Energy use.
Lifecycle issues.
Enabling effects.

Summary.


2

The mobile revolution


3

More internet and more use indoors

120x more data

79% indoors
OFCOM, 2012; ITU, 2012

4

GSMA Mobile Economy India 2013


http://www.gsmamobileeconomyindia.com/
5

Globally deployed mobile technologies

• Total connections, excluding M2M, stand at 6.6 billion in 2012 globally.
• Total unique mobile subscribers stands at 3.2 billion in 2012 globally.

• About 1.5 billion unconnected due to lack of mobile coverage.

Wireless Intelligence, 2012

6

Evolution of mobile technologies

Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2013

7

Mobile phones need nearby antenna sites






Phones are low power
devices.
Adaptive power control
reduces interference and
extends talk-time.
Higher data rates.


8

Available data rates reduces with increasing distance

Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2013

9

Many types of antenna sites


10

Contents





–
–



–
–
–




Energy use.
Lifecycle issues.
Enabling effects.

Summary.


11

Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)


 Radio signals are not x-rays.
 High intensity radio signals cause heating.
 RF energy absorption assessed by Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR) with units of W/kg.
12

WHO International EMF Project

www.who.int/emf

13

Hazards of radiofrequency (RF) exposure


Established:
– Behavioural changes in
response to heating.
– Cataracts
•

–

(very intense exposures).

Microwave hearing
•


(radar pulses).



Not established:
– Cancer.
– Fertility.
– Electro
hypersensitivity.
– Symptomatic
complaints.
– Animals, plants
– …

14

Safety thresholds for RF exposure
Exposure
Adverse effects threshold
www.icnirp.org

10%
www.who.int/emf

2%


Worker
Limit

Public
Limit

Typical
Levels

15

Evidence subject to regular expert review

http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/mobile-and-health/scienceoverview/reports-and-statements-index/

16

Nordic authorities – December 2013


http://www.nrpa.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=240
17

Nordic authorities – December 2013 (1/3)



‘The overall data published in the scientific literature to date do not
show adverse health effects from exposure of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields below the guidelines or limits adopted in the
Nordic countries. However, epidemiological studies on long-term
exposure to radio waves from mobile phones are still limited,
especially studies on children and adolescents.’


18

Large body of relevant research
n = 981
n = 45 (children)
(8 January 2014)


http://www.emf-portal.de/overviews.php?l=e
19




‘Since 2011, a number of epidemiological studies on mobile phone
use and risk of brain tumours and other tumours of the head have
been published. The overall data on brain tumour and mobile phone
use do not show an effect on tumour risk. There is still limited data
regarding risks of long-term use of mobile phones, longer than
approximately 13-15 years. It is too early to draw firm conclusions
when it comes to risk for brain tumours for children and adolescents,
but the available literature to date does not show an increased risk.’


20

Mobile phone epidemiology (1/3)
INTERPHONE – Cumulative time of use

• glioma

• meningioma

The INTERPHONE Study Group, 2010

21







Meta-analysis of 47
eligible studies.
‘Overall, the results of our
study detract from the
hypothesis that mobile
phone use affects the
occurrence of intracranial
tumors.’
Continue to monitor.
Lagorio et al, 2013


22

USA – subscribers and brain tumour rates

Inskip et al, 2010

23






‘Since exposure of the general public, including children, to radio
waves from the wireless local area networks and base stations is far
below the exposure limits, there is no need to further limit exposure
from these radio wave sources.’
‘Recent surveys have shown that despite the sharp increase in
applications using wireless technology, the level of radio wave
exposure in public outdoor areas as well as indoor in schools, offices
and dwellings is far below the exposure limits.’


24

Exposure reduces rapidly with increased distance
Distance x 2
Exposure ÷ 4

Public limit
Worker limit

Less than 1% of limit

Compliance zones near to the antennas.

25

Mobile networks levels similar to other radio sources

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

ICNIRP (100%)
Level (% ICNIRP)
9.22
0.06

0.01

0.41

3.93

Average Baby monitors Average WLAN access DECT cordless
urban, TV and
(20 cm)
urban, base point (20 cm) phone (20 cm)
radio
stations


Based on Valberg et al., 2007
26

No significant change in average exposure

Rowley & Joyner, 2012

27

Epidemiology – base stations

 National study:
 6,985 subjects, 76,890 base station antennas.

 Assessed mother’s exposure during pregnancy.
 Distance, base station power, modelled power density.

 ‘There is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and
estimates of the mother’s exposure to mobile phone base stations
during pregnancy.’
Elliott et al., 2010.

28

Epidemiology – broadcast transmitters






Ecological studies of broadcast
transmitters Australia, UK, USA.

Case-control studies of
broadcast transmitters in
South Korea and Germany.
Investigations of reported illness clusters.
–



‘…it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base
stations merely by chance.’ – WHO (2006)

No hazards found among populations living near high power
broadcast transmitters.


Hocking et al., 1996.
Ha et al, 2007.
Schuz et al., 2008.
29

IARC classification for RF – May 2011


http://monographs.iarc.fr
30

WHO – September 2013

‘While an increased risk of brain tumours from the use of mobile phones is not
established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile
phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of
mobile phone use and brain cancer risk.’
‘Studies to date provide no indication that environmental exposure to RF fields,
such as from base stations, increases the risk of cancer or any other disease.’


31

Established Risk
Obey the law.
Drive safe.
Don’t text.
Stay in control.


http://www.michellehenry.fr/tel.htm
32

Contents





–
–



–
–
–




Energy use.
Lifecycle issues.
Enabling effects.

Summary.


33

Energy and greenhouse gas emissions


Total global electricity and diesel energy consumption by all mobile
networks was approximately 120 Terawatt hours (TWh) in 2010.
–
–



Almost 80 TWh of the energy consumption was from grid electricity,
and just over 40 TWh was from diesel generators used in off‐grid and
unreliable grid locations.
–



Energy costs of $13 billion;
Responsible for 70 Mt CO2e.

Typical generator efficiency is 20%.

Total network energy consumption by mobile operators showed no
growth from 2009 to 2010.
–

Increased energy per connection in emerging markets.


GSMA, Mobile’s Green Manifesto 2012
34

GSMA Mobile Energy Efficiency Benchmarking

Diesel usage
kWh per
connection

Electricity usage

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

Country


GSMA mobile energy efficiency (MEE) benchmarking:
–
–

–

Network is more than 70% of operator energy usage.
Energy is 15-25% of network opex.
Typical site 3.2 kW, best in class 1 kW.
www.gsma.com/mee


35

MEE participants are located in 145 countries
Greenland
Alaska

Norway

Iceland

Finland

Great Germany
Britain
Belarus
Ireland
Poland
Ukraine
France
Romania
Italy
Turkey
Greece
Portugal Spain
Lebanon Syria

USA

Morocco
Mexico

Belize

Guatemala

Russia

Sweden

Canada

Algeria

Bahamas
Cuba
Dominic. Rep.

Mauritania

Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Venezuela
Guyana
Costa Rica
Panama
Surinam
Colombia
Fr. Guyana
Ecuador

Senegal
Guinea
Sierra Leone

Mali

Niger

Burkina Faso

Liberia
Ivory Coast

Peru
Bolivia

Paraguay

Egypt

Chad

Cameroon
Ghana
Gabon

Yemen

Sudan

Nigeria

Angola

Mongolia
Kyrgyzstan

Somalia

Uganda

North Korea
Japan
South Korea

China
Bhutan

Bangladesh

Myanmar

Kenya

Taiwan

Laos
Vietnam

Cambodia
Thailand

Ethiopia

D. R. of
Congo

Philippines

Malaysia
Indonesia

Papua New Guinea

Tanzania
Zambia

Mozambique

Zimbabwe
Namibia
Botswana
South Africa

Chile

Oman

Eritrea

Congo
Brazil

Uzbekistan

Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
Qatar
Nepal
Pakistan
Saudi
U.A.E
Arabia
India

Israel

Libya

Kazakhstan

Madagascar
Australia

Lesotho

Uruguay
Argentina

New Zealand

Participant in MEE

36

GSMA Mobile Energy Efficiency Benchmarking and
Optimization Services




Networks are compared against four Key Performance Indicators:
1. Energy consumption per mobile connection
2. Energy consumption per unit mobile traffic
3. Energy consumption per cell site
4. Energy consumption per unit of mobile revenue
Unique analytical approach allows MNOs to compare their networks
against one another and against their peers on a like-for-like basis
–
Variables outside the MNO’s control, e.g. population distribution
and climate, are ‘normalised’ using regression techniques
–
Quantifies potential efficiency gains, typically 10% to 25%.
.



If all networks with above average energy consumption were
improved to the sector average the potential energy cost
saving for mobile operators would be $1 billion per annum
at 2010 prices.


37

Options to reduce energy consumption


Cooling:
–
–



Energy efficiency of network equipment:
–
–
–
–
–



Increase free cooling, increase number of outdoor versus indoor sites.
Use temperature resistant batteries.

Activate energy saving features.
More efficient rectifiers.
Newer equipment.
Single RAN – LTE+3G+2G on same hardware.
Site sharing.

Reduction in diesel consumption:
–
–

Generator‐battery hybrids.
Green power solutions.


38

GSMA Green Power for Mobile program


Target = 118,000 green deployments or
20% of total off-grid sites

39

Mobile phone lifecycle


40

Universal charger solution


41

UK - charger out of the box

Over 100 million unused chargers in the UK alone.
70% of customers already have the suitable charger for their new phone.


42

Reducing phone environmental impacts

Supply chain.
Conflict-free minerals.
Design.
Fair price.
Closing the loop.


43

Mobile phone recycling


A 2008 survey of 6,500 people in 13 countries reported:
–
–
–
–
–

44% kept their old phone;
25% gave it to friends or family;
16% sold their used phone (especially in emerging markets);
3% are recycled and;
4% are thrown in to landfill.



Kenya – 10 authorised repairers but 2,000 to 4,000 informal.



Local sorting – export for safe materials recovery.



Financial and environmental sustainability.


44

Materials recovered from recycled phones
• Over 90% of the materials
can be recovered.
• Recycling 50,000 handsets
can remove the need to
mine 110 tonnes gold ore,
213 tonnes of silver bearing
ore or 11 tonnes of copper
sulphide ore.
• For every tonne of mobile
phone materials recovered
10 tonnes of greenhouse
gas emissions are avoided.

www.mobilemuster.com.au/

45

GSMA Mobile’s Green Manifesto 2012


Footprint of mobile industry.
–

Total network CO2e emissions
estimated at 70 million tonnes (Mt)
for 2010:
•
•

–



<0.2% of the global total;
lower than the emissions of Austria.

Expect emissions per connection to
fall by 40% by 2020.

Enabling role of mobile.
–
–
–

4 to 5 times own footprint.
Smart applications.
Mobile M2M connections could
enable savings equivalent to taking
four million cars off the road.


www.gsma.com/environment
46

GSMA Mobile’s Green Manifesto 2012

www.gsma.com/environment

47

Summary






Growing demand for wireless communications means
expansion of mobile networks.
No established health risks from the radio signals of
mobile phones or antenna sites.
Mobile industry continues to work on reducing its own
footprint and expanding enabling effect in other sectors.


48

धन्यवाद्


Contact: Dr Jack Rowley



Job title: Senior Director
Research & Sustainability



email address:
jrowley@gsma.com



Website:
www.gsma.com


49

Addressing EMF Concerns and Environmental Sustainability in Mobile Communications

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Addressing EMF Concerns and Environmental Sustainability in Mobile Communications

Similar to Addressing EMF Concerns and Environmental Sustainability in Mobile Communications (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Addressing EMF Concerns and Environmental Sustainability in Mobile Communications