Introduction
Mobile telephones are amongst the fastest moving consumer products in the world today. And unlike other products that have notable differences in industrialized and developing nations, mobile telephony has overcome these barriers to make inroads in all markets across the world (Ismail 2006p 237).
This is mainly because they enhance communication and have consequently resulted in the integration of daily activities in many communities, thus contributing to economic growth and other types of social inclusion (Chabosssou Et al 2008, p 392). Like all positive technologies developed in the society today, Mobile telephony has its bad side too. This is well evidenced in the effects that the use of mobile phones exposes the environment to.
One thing noted through the research of this essay is that most of the extreme allegations that mobile telephony is said to have on the environment are still unsubstantiated. In Germany for example, Nowotny Et al (2005, p 72) notes that despite the wide ranging sensitization by the media, the negative effect of mobile telephony on health was found to be relatively low. In relation to health, the thermal effects caused by the electro-magnetic fields released during mobile phone use seem to be the bone of contention.
Of particular worry is the allegation that they can cause cancer. However, scientists have noted that there is no connection between the high-frequency fields and cancer (Nowotny et al 2005, p 72).. Scherer & Schimanek (2003, cited by Nowotny et al 2005, p 72) note that the notion that the high-frequency fields are carcinogenic cannot be fully dismissed since there is no specific scientific findings to warrant this possibility being ruled-out.
In 2007 for example, researchers claimed that the radioactivity released by the use of mobile telephony was to blame for reduced bee colonies in some parts of the United States and Europe (Lean & Showcross 2007). However, this was just a theory that claimed that the abrupt disappearance of bees, which was first noticed by beekeepers in the United States and later in Europe, was as a result of radiation caused by mobile phone use.
The theory by scientists had it that the radiation interferes with the navigation systems of the bees, thus preventing them from finding their way back to their colonies once they leave the hives. The scientists claimed that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), whereby only queens, immature worker bees and eggs were left in the hives was evidence enough that bees that leave the hives singularly never find their way back into the hives, and probably die alone (Lean & Showcross 2007).
The evidence that mobile phones could be linked to the CCD came when Dr. Jochen Kuhn, a researcher in Germany, conducted research by placing mobile phones near bee hives. He found out that most hives with mobile phones placed near them were abandoned (Lean & Showcross 2007). This was a good enough hint that there cold be some truth in the assertion that mobile telephony had led to decreased bees.
The most notable, albeit indirect, effect of mobile telephony on the environment is the numerous number of communication masts that dot sky-lines across the world. Although mobile telephony was first seen as freedom from the unsightly wires that dotted many landscapes, their proliferation posed just another dominant and more evident addition to most landscapes. As the use of mobile phones increases throughout the world, so do the dominant towers that disrupt the aesthetics of the landscape. In 2002 for example, Wikle (p 47) notes that there were over 128,000 cellular masts erected throughout the United States’ landscape. They ranged from self-supporting poles mainly in urban areas, to wire-anchored masts popular in the country sides.
According to the US fish & Wildlife Service, communication towers pose a threat not only to the wildlife and birds, but to human beings as well (USFWS Division of Public Affairs, 2009). USFWS claims that an estimated 4 to 5 million birds never go back to the United States due to the communication towers. This affects about 90 birds’ species in the country, some which are within the threatened or endangered category. According to USFWS, towers that rise above 199 feet above the ground are especially hazardous to birds because the lighting that is made on such masts at night may attract the night-migrating birds thus diverting their migratory patterns (Katz, etal 2002, p25).
To the humans, the lit masts may confuse pilots especially during periods when there is poor visibility and may lead to airplane accidents (USFWS Division of Public Affairs, 2009). Combined, the fears and aesthetic effects, most which are termed irrational by authorities, sometimes lead to opposition by communities of sitting masts in their regions. In the US for example, authorities had to intervene in assuring locals that there was no proven health consequences of masts. This was after the government established that environmental and health concerns were the leading causes of community opposition to towers being erected in their regions.
Such opposition by communities was hindering the expansion of mobile telephony in specific areas of the United States in the 1990s (Tuesley 1999, p887). This came at a time when the mobile phone companies were under pressure to increase their coverage in the country. To make it even worse, the communities were objecting the visual impacts of the towers and supposed health risks and hence communities started the zoning ordinances to counter the proliferation of the masts (Wikle 2002 p 52).
Wikle (2002, p 50) suggests that mast sitting has also led to the depreciation of property values in some parts of the United states and damaged relationships between communities. This is especially because the land owner who allows the construction of masts to be constructed on his or her property is compensated highly by the phone company, often to the chagrin of other community members who often abhor the scenic obstruction and perceived health consequences that mast sitting in their midst has (Sobagu 2008, p 175).
To prevent such happenings, local communities in the United States had set up organizations that lobbied people to object to the construction of towers in their midst. This is despite the fact that the Telecommunication act restricts the authority that local communities can have over the erecting of such towers (Wikle 2002 p 57).
The second most obvious negative effect of mobile telephones is seen during their disposal. Yuan (2005, p 42) notes that the rechargeable batteries used in mobile phones contain toxic materials which harm the environment if not disposed-off correctly. Unfortunately, not many people, especially in the developing countries, know this. This is further worsened by the fact that public information regarding the same is minimal. A case study in Australia reveals that the disposal of batteries increased from 19 percent in 1992 to over 62 percent in 2003 (Trewin & ABS (2006, p660).
This corresponded with the first phase of mobile telephony, during which the first purchasers of mobile phones were starting to experience problems in charging their batteries and hence bought new replacement batteries. The batteries were part of the 82 percent toxic waste generated in Australian households and dumped inappropriately without people knowing the negative effects that such dumping practices have on the environment and their health. HM ( 2006 p 88), also agrees that not many know that toxic substances have been used in the construction of communication devices like mobile phones and hence never think that disposing them correctly is important.
By dumping mobile phones in landfills, people throughout the world unknowingly create hazardous pollution that has the capacity to last many years from the time of disposal. Different parts of a mobile phone are made up of different components. The printed circuit boards, for example, are made of metals, while the covers are made of plastics. Batteries on the other hand contain a range of metals. All the different parts are potential pollutants if not well disposed (cleanuptheworld.org 2008, p 4)
Lead
Lead is contained in mobile phone batteries and other communication gadgets such as TVs and CRT monitors. When disposed-off wrongly, lead harms the environment and can infiltrate the air thus causing air pollution. The consequences of lead air pollution include harm to the circulatory and nervous systems (HWM 2006, p 88). Lead is also a suspected carcinogen and is known to disrupt the hormonal system in the human body. Scientists have over time suspected that lead can cause decreased mental abilities, behavioral disorders, reproductive defects and developmental delays (cleanuptheworld.org, 2008, p 3)
Brominated Flame Retardants
These compounds are added to mobile phones to reduce their affinity to fire. According to HWM (2006, p88), Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) may be successful in reducing the probability that mobile phones catch fire, but may also increase the risk of thyroid damage, cancer and unhealthy fetal development if exposed to humans. BFRs also contain highly bio-accumulative and persistent chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
The effects of such chemicals on the environment were first recognized when Polar Bears in the arctic were found to have significant quantities of the compounds in their bodies. This was explained by the fact that bio-accumulation was common in the marine food web in the Arctic Circle (cleanuptheworld.com 2008, p3)
Cadmium
This is a poisonous heavy metal that causes both prostate and lung cancer when in contact with human beings. It is ranked as the seventh most toxic metal to humankind and may also cause harmful side effects to the respiratory system, the hormonal system, the cardiovascular system, kidneys and the gastro intestinal tract.
Lithium
Quite a huge percentage of batteries used in mobile phones are made of Luithium-ion. This is a heavy metal that involves high degrees of chemical actions during creation. As such, they pollute the environment especially in the landfills where they are disposed and may lead to water pollution if they infiltrate water bodies. The metals in this compound can also create underground fires, which prove hard to extinguish.
Mercury
The inorganic mercury contained in some mobile handsets is deposited in water bodies or soil if not well disposed. They are then transformed to organic compounds by micro-organisms contained in the different disposal fields. One such organic compound is methyl-mercury, which accumulates in living organisms like fish. Human beings who consume such fish are exposed to the negative health consequences such as neurotoxin, respiratory toxins and reproductive toxins.
Perhaps the most abhorred of the environmental impacts, which also happens to be the biggest impact of mobile telephony, is that they are everywhere and can be used almost anywhere. However, disruptions caused by their constant ringing and the consequent mono-conversations is not appreciated in areas like theatres, libraries, classrooms and other selected public areas like churches (wikle 2002 p47). Yet despite their disruption of the peaceful environment that people used to enjoy in places like theatres, many mobile-phone users do not realize the inconvenience that their one-sided conversations cause other users of public facilities.
Environmental sustainability
Sustainable development, which many people believe is supported by technological development, tries to achieve a balance between the physical environment, resources and sustainable use of resources, in such a way that the natural environment will be able to continue supporting life (Avvannavar 2008, pp 89). As such, for mobile telephony to aid environmental sustainability, it should be of no harm to the environment or of permissible harm levels. Among the ways that are being developed in order to ensure that mobile telephony supports sustainable environments is the development of a concept that would utilize the 4R’s of environmental conservation.
They include Reducing mobile telephony waste, Recycling mobile telephones, Re-using them and Recovering them. Environmentalists argue that the need to provide cheap communication to all communities in different parts of the world should not override the importance of ensuring that the prosperity of the industry is done within the boundaries of ecological feasibility (Avvannavar 2008, p 89).
The effects of high mobile phone use on people and their environment are enormous. While there are benefits such as better, easier and less costly communication, which leads to an easier and cost-efficient way of doing business, it is obvious that humans are suffering from high rates of mobile phone use.
Perceived health risks not counting, psychiatrists in India have noted that a psychological condition dubbed ‘ringxiety’ is becoming more common in the society as more people purchase handsets. People suffering the condition imagine their phone is ringing or vibrating, while in reality, it is not (Avvannavar 2008, p96). The recyclers of the e-waste from discarded mobile phones are also at a risk of contracting diseases that come from exposure to substances discussed earlier in this essay.
Conclusion
Mobile phone making companies now recognize the dangers posed by the waste problem from the mobile phones. One would therefore hope that they will consider preventive measures such as printing disposal instruction on the phones during the manufacturing stages, creating mass awareness on effective ways of disposal and /or making phones that last much longer in order to avoid the recurrence of waste. With improved technologies, it is also hoped that some of the toxic components in mobile phones can be done away with. Already, the use of LCD screens has decreased the use of mercury in phone manufacturing meaning that the possibility of mercury pollution will reduce significantly in the next two decades (Law 2004).
The controversy and debate regarding the masts and their aesthetic interruption may not end any time soon. This is especially because the same people who strongly object such developments are the same who benefit from the services. In addition, the laws always tend to favor the proliferation of communication infrastructure thus disregarding most of the objections raised by locals regarding the same.
Worse still, the fears that the electromagnetic activity surrounding the base stations may be harmful to human health are not recognized since no evidence to support this has been found. Depending on which side of the divide one is, the arguments about the good and the bad effects of mobile telephony on the environment can be equally convincing. The verdict however may be more evident in years to come. All that is clear for now is that good planning and effective e-waste management is needed if the negative effects of mobile telephony are to be maintained within acceptable levels.
References
Avvannavar, Santosh Et al 2008, “Mobile phones: an anthropological review of its evolutionary impact”, the journal of International social research, Vol. 1 no. 5 pp 81-104.
Chabossou, A et al, 2008, “Mobile telephony access and usage in Africa, research ICT Africa journal, Vol. 4, No. 47, pp 392-416.
cleanuptheworld.org, 2008, “What’s in a mobile phone?’. Web.
HWM, 2008, “Big Camera’s Flexible Screens”, SPH magazines, New England.
Ismail, sherille 2006, “Information and communication s for development 2006”, Federal communications Law journal, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp 237+.
Katz, James et al 2002, perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
Law, Alex, 2004, “The social geometry of mobile telephony”, Razon y palabra, No. 42. Web.
Lean, Geoffrey & Shawcross, Harriet 2007, are mobile phones wiping out our bees? Web.
Nageswari, Sri, 2003, “Biological Effects of Microwaves and Mobile Telephony”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Non-Ionizing radiation at UNITEN. Web.
Nowotny, Helga Et al, 2005, the public nature of science under assault: politics, markets, science and the law, Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston.
Sobagu, parisara, 2008, Cyberspace too getting cluttered!, household appliances and cyber waste journal, Vol.4 No.8, pp 172-175.
Trewin, D & ABS, 2006, Year Book in Australia, Australian bureau of statistics, Sydney pp 23-420.
Tueslay, Malcom 1999, “Not in my backyard: the sitting of wireless communications facilities”, federal communications law journal, Vol. 51, no. 3 pp 887.
USFWS Division of Public Affairs 2009, communication towers. Web.
Wikle, Thomas, 2002, “Cellular Tower Proliferation in the United States”, Geographical review Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1. pp 45-51.
Yuan, Michael, 2005, Nokia Smart Phone hacks, Ed., illustrated, O’reilly, New Jersey.