Освобождение environmentalism

3. emissions guidelines –  постановления об эмиссии

4. burgeoning market –  быстро расширяющийся рынок

5. image-conscious teenagers – тинэйджеры, зацикленные на имидже

6. be receptive to smth – быть менее защищённым, более восприимчивым

7. non-thermal effects of mobile phones radiation – нетепловой эффект радиоизлучения мобильных телефонов

8. mobile phone mast – антенна сотовой связи

9. exposure to electro-magnetic fields\ radiation – действие электромагнитного поля (радиации, излучения)

10. immunity against – иммунитет против

11. We have no evolutionary immunity against – В процессе эволюции у нас не выработался иммунитет против

12. genuine concern for - искренняя забота

13. available indications that – очевидные признаки того, что

14. sanitised version of smb’s findings – «прилизанный» вариант данных, собранных кем-либо

15. aggression by the pulses of microwaves – вредное воздействие микроволн (микроволновых импульсов)

16. adverse health effects – неблагоприятное, вредное (для здоровья) воздействие

17. lucrative – прибыльный, доходный 

Прочитайте  и переведите текст 

MOBILE PHONE INVASION 

The Ecologist, October 2001 

     The mobile phone invasion is an unprecedented experiment pitting market forces against the health of the population, particularly the young. Governments, cashing in on the licensing (licencing) bonanza, wave through plans for a forest of phone masts. Emissions guidelines are drown up to minimize. Here, The Ecologist looks at the issues, beginning with a damning report which points to evidence of a cover-up. It may be good to talk, but why is not anyone listening?

     I imagine you are the government of the UK. You’ve recently taken £22.5 billion in licenses (licences) for the new 30 network from the biggest mobile phone companies in the world and they want value for money. You’ve got a burgeoning market amongst technologically aware, image conscious teenagers that skyrocketed 250 per cent over the previous year (the 25 per cent of secondary school children who owned or shared a mobile at the end of 1999, became 64 per cent by the end of 2000). But then there is also an ever growing(evergrowing) number of scientific studies associating serious health risks with mobile phone use, especially amongst children and teenagers, whose thinner skulls make them all the more receptive to the non-thermal effects of mobile phone radiation. What do you do?

     Well, according to Dr. G. Hyland in a report submitted to the Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee of the European Parliament on 11 July 2001, you bury your head and take the money.

     Dr. Hyland, of the Department of Physics at Warwick University in the UK and the International Institute of Biophysics in Germany argues that existing safety guidelines relating to mobile phone masts are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure to electro-magnetic fields.

     In the report he warns that a major contemporary threat to the health of society is man-made «electro smog»( electrosmog). The nature of the pollution is such that for people living in the vicinity of mobile phone masts, there is literally «nowhere to hide». In addition, given the short time for which humans have been exposed to it, we have «no evolutionary immunity against any adverse effects».

     Also doubtless driven by market imperatives rather than genuine concern for public health are efforts (of governments and industry) to establish a global harmonization of radiation exposure standards, by attempting to persuade countries that currently operate more stringent limits – such as Russia and China – to relax them in favour of the higher levels tolerated in the West. It can be no coincidence, Hyland argues, that in Russia, where the frequency-specific sensitivity of living organisms to ultra-low intensity microwave radiation was first discovered over 30 years ago, that the exposure guidelines are approximately 100 times more stringent than those of ICNIRP (International Commission for Nonionising Radiation Protection)!

     Criticizing (Criticising) the performance of the media, Hyland argues that there is «a regrettable tendency to attribute market-friendly result a greater significance, publicity and profile than ones indicative of the possibility of the adverse health impacts». An example of this is provided by the publication of the results of a recent study in the USA, which found an increased risk amongst users of mobile phones of a rare kind of tumour (epithelial neuroma) in the periphery of the brain – «precisely where there is maximum penetration of radiation from the mobile phone».

     This aspect of the report, Hyland argues, «completely escaped the attention of the media, who focused instead exclusively on the finding that there was no overall increase in the incidence of brain tumours amongst mobile phone users».

     Hyland argues that research necessary to establish mobile phone safety has not been bypassed or compromised, «but rather – and more reprehensibly – that already available indications that the technology is potentially less than safe have been (and continued to be) studiously ignored», not only by national and international regulatory bodies.

     Among the evidence of adverse health affects studied by Hyland, is the following:

     * There is consistent empirical, anecdotal evidence from many countries that the health of some people is adversely affected in various ways when they are exposed to the type of radiation emitted by mobile phone masts, despite it’s intensity being well below existing safety limits. The anecdotal nature of many of the reported health problems - such as headache, sleep disruption, impairment of short-term memory, nosebleeds and, more seriously, an increase in the frequency of the seizures in some children already suffering from epilepsy – does not constitute grounds for dismissing them out of hand. Given the lack of research on this relatively new technology, such reports are an indispensable source of information, Hyland argues.

     * There is documented evidence that long-term (involuntary) exposure to microwave radiation of intensities between that realized near an active phone and that found in the vicinity of a base-station, does cause serious illnesses, such as leukemia (leukaemia) and lymphoma, in certain exposed people. This is the conclusion reached by a relatively recent re-analysis of the Lilienfeld report on the Moscow US Embassy irradiation during the «cold» war, based on information that only became fully, available following the Freedom of Information Act. This reveals that the original verdict of «no serious health effects» was, in fact, a sanitized version of Lilienfeld’s findings, in which his statements of concern had been deliberately removed by the State Department. Furthermore, children, Hyland explains, are at greatest risk for several good reasons, including:

     * Absorption of microwaves of the frequency used in mobile telephony is greatest in an object about the size of a child’s head – the so-called «head-resonance» – whilst, in consequence of the thinner skull of a child, the penetration of the radiation into the brain is greater than in an adult.

     * The still developing nervous system and associated brain-wave activity in a child (and particularly one that epileptic) are more vulnerable to aggression by the pulses of microwaves used in mobile phone radiation than in the case with a mature adult.

     * A child’s immune system, whose efficiency is, in any case, degraded radiation of the kind used in mobile phone, is generally less robust than is that of an adult, so that the child is less able to «cope» with any adverse health effect provoked by (chronic) exposure to such radiation. Asking the question again: If you were the UK government, what would you do? 

7. Ответе на вопросы

1. What does the author mean by saying «governments cashing in on bonanza»?

2. What is the static evidence regarding teenage owners of handies? How does mobile phone use affect children and teenagers?

3. What makes existing safety guidelines relating to mobile phone masts completely inadequate?

4. What is implied by «man-made electrosmog»?

5. Why does a global «harmonization» of radiation exposure standards prove to be lucrative for governments and industry?

6. What is the attitude of the media to the risks taken by mobile phone users? 

8. Определите, верно ли утверждение

1. Russia and China have the least stringent exposure guidelines than other сountries.

2. Modern people have got evolutionary immunity against any adverse effects.

3. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation near an active phone and in the vicinity of a base-station causes serious illnesses.