The Impact of Mobile Phone in Our Daily Life free essay sample

A mobile phone can make and receive telephone calls to and from the public telephone network which includes other mobiles and fixed-line phones across the world. It does this by connecting to a cellular network owned by a mobile network operator. In addition to functioning as a telephone, a modern mobile phone typically supports additional services such as SMS (or text) messaging, MMS, e-mail and Internet access; short-range wireless (infrared or Bluetooth) communications; as well as business and gaming applications, and photography. Mobile phones that offer advanced computing abilities are referred to as smart phones. 2. 2 Background (History): The history of mobile phones begins with early efforts to develop mobile telephony concepts using two-way radios and continues through emergence of modern mobile phones and associated services. Radiophones have a long and varied history going back to Reginald Fessendens invention and shore-to-ship demonstration of radio telephony, through the Second World War with military use of radio telephony links and civil services in the 1950s, hile hand-held mobile radio devices have been available since 1973. Mobile phone history is often divided into generations (first, second, third and so on) to mark significant step changes in capabilities as the technology improved over the years. Dr Martin Cooper, a former general manager for the systems division at Motorola, is considered the inventor of the first portable handset and the first person to make a call on a portable cell phone in April 1973. The first call he made was to his rival, Joel Engel, Bell Labs head of research. ATTs research arm, Bell Laboratories, introduced the idea of cellular communications in 1947. But Motorola and Bell Labs in the sixties and early seventies were in a race to incorporate the technology into portable devices. Cooper, now 70, wanted people to be able to carry their phones with them anywhere. While he was a project manager at Motorola in 1973, Cooper set up a base station in New York with the first working prototype of a cellular telephone, the Motorola Dyna-Tac. After some initial testing in Washington for the F. C. C. , Mr. Cooper and Motorola took the phone technology to New York to show the public. | [pic] |The First Cellphone (1973) | | | | | |Name: Motorola Dyna-Tac | | |Size: 9 x 5 x 1. 75 inches | | |Weight: 2. pounds | | |Display: None | | |Number of Circuit Boards: 30 | | |Talk time: 35 minutes | | |Recharge Time: 10 hours | | |Features: Talk, listen, dial | In 1973, when the company installed the base station to handle the first public demonstration of a phone call over the cellular network, Motorola was trying to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to allocate frequency space to private companies for use in the emerging technology of cellular communications. After some initial testing in Washington for the F. C. C. , Mr. Cooper and Motorola took the phone technology to New York to show the public. On April 3, 1973, standing on a street near the Manhattan Hilton, Mr. Cooper decided to attempt a private call before going to a press conference upstairs in the hotel. He picked up the 2-pound Motorola handset called the Dyna-Tac and pushed the off hook button. The phone came alive, connecting Mr. Cooper with the base station on the roof of the Burlington Consolidated Tower (now the Alliance Capital Building) and into the land-line system. To the bewilderment of some passers-by, he dialed the number and held the phone to his ear. 2. 3 Literature Review: Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association conducted a research study on the selected topic before which was published in June 2007. The study was aimed to have a sound knowledge of the impact of mobile on work/life balance. Moreover the researchers wanted to find the benefits of mobile phone some of them were service provider. Their research key findings were: †¢ The lowest mobile phone use is found among those aged 60 years or more, but the mobile phone is so universally diffused that use is unaffected by income levels and occupation. †¢ The majority of users are subscribers and prepaid use is concentrated among those under 25 years. Around a quarter of managers and associate professionals have their bills paid by their employer, whereas in other occupations around 10% or less benefit from employer support. Cost is by far the major reason given for choice of handset, while there is no single factor which explains the choice of service provider. †¢ ‘Convenience’ of the mobile phone is the reason most frequently given for choosing to talk on a mobile rather than a landline. ‘Costà ¢â‚¬â„¢ is a major reason for preferring to talk using a landline rather than a mobile. †¢ There is a very high awareness of 3G (86% of males and 75% of females). But 61% of respondents indicate that they do not access internet services via their mobile phone. The lag in take-up is a topic for further research. †¢ Logs of actual calls made and SMS texts sent show that the predominant use of the mobile is for contacting family and friends, with work-related reasons far less important. Men make more calls for business purposes, while women use the mobile for social connectivity. †¢ Typically mobile phone users call relatively infrequently, with 28% making calls less than once a day. †¢ Calls cluster by time of day, according to purpose. Most work-related calls are made in standard working hours. The rate of calls to family and friends are low in working hours but high at the end of school hours and in the evening. †¢ Perceived reasons for using a mobile are talk and messages. Other uses, including data transmission, are at this point minor. †¢ Asynchronous communication practices, such as turning off your mobile to avoid being disturbed, are common techniques. Ninety per cent of the respondents ‘normally’ switch off their phone in the cinema, two- thirds switch off their phone at work meetings, and almost half turn off their phones in restaurants. Women are more reluctant than men to take their mobile phone on holiday ‘to talk to work colleagues’. †¢ A third of workers say that it would be difficult to do their job properly without their mobile. This is particularly the case for men. †¢ Half of employed respondents think that mobiles increase their workload, for 42% the effect is neutral, and a few (9%) think mobiles reduce their workload. This is offset by productivity gains. Over half (55%) of employed respondents indicate that job-related mobile calls increase their productivity. Over two-thirds of the respondents report that the mobile phone is an important medium for maintaining kinship ties, especially for women. The mobile is a device well suited to maintaining intimate relationships at a geograph ical distance. †¢ Conveying information about ‘timing of the arrival at home’ and ‘arranging to meet with other family members’ are the major uses of the mobile phone for micro-coordination. Among parents, ‘arranging to deliver goods or children’ and finding out where children are’ is rated as important. †¢ More than half of the employed respondents believe that the mobile helps them to balance their family and working lives. Very few report that the mobile phone has a negative impact on their work-life balance. The mobile phone is an indispensable part of the everyday life of Australians. More than 90% report that their lives could not ‘proceed as normal’ if they were suddenly without their mobile phone. †¢ Carrying a mobile phone makes most people (75%) feel more secure. †¢ When asked about the impact of the mobile phone on their sense of time pressure, 39% report that the mobile reduces time pressure, while 33% report it increases pressure. †¢ Most people (59%) find that the mobile phone does not affect their level of stress. Of those who report that it has some impact, respondents are three times more likely to say that it reduces their stress level. Contrary to fears about the intrusive character of the mobile phone on leisure, few respondents (4%) report that the mobile reduces the quality of their leisure time. 2. 4 Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine and compare the extent of vocational training, satisfaction in employment/careers, and socio-economic improvement of the project-assisted institute graduates and non-assisted institute graduates. The second objective was to determine and compare educational development of the project-assisted and non-assisted institutes as perceived by teachers, administrators, and current students. A final objective was to identify employers’ skill requirements for today’s work, their use of curren t technology, and their planning for perceived future trends. The overall study objective is to formulate a broad planning and development framework setting out guidelines and standards for more effective and comprehensive planning for pedestrians at different levels of planning, based on which conceptual Pedestrian Plans would be prepared for application and assessment of broad impacts and implementation mechanisms of the pedestrian planning. The Study aims to promote pedestrian planning in the plan making and development process and establish the prima facie feasibility. 3. Research Methodology 3. 1 Data Sources: Data-collection techniques allow us to systematically collect information about our objects of study (people, objects, phenomena) and about the settings in which they occur. In the collection of data we have to be systematic. If data are collected haphazardly, it will be difficult to answer our research questions in a conclusive way. Various data collection techniques can be used such as: †¢ Primary Data †¢ Secondary Data P rimary Data: Using available information: Usually there is a large amount of data that has already been collected by others, although it may not necessarily have been analyses or published. Locating these sources and retrieving the information is a good starting point in any data collection effort. For example, analysis of the information routinely collected by health facilities can be very useful for identifying problems in certain interventions or in flows of drug supply, or for identifying increases in the incidence of certain diseases. The use of key informants is another important technique to gain access to available information. Key informants could be knowledgeable community leaders or health staff at various levels and one or two informative members of the target group. It can be involved in various stages of the research, from the statement of the problem to analysis of the data and development of recommendations. Other sources of available data are newspapers and published case histories. The advantage of using existing data is that collection is inexpensive. However, it is sometimes difficult to gain access to the records or reports required, and the data may not always be complete and precise enough, or too disorganized. Observing: OBSERVATION is a technique that involves systematically selecting, watching and recording behavior and characteristics of living beings, objects or phenomena. Observation of human behaviors is a much-used data collection technique. It can be undertaken in different ways: Participant observation: The observer takes part in the situation he or she observes. (For example, a doctor hospitalized with a broken hip, who now observes hospital procedures ‘from within’. ) Non-participant observation: The observer watches the situation, openly or concealed, but does not participate. Secondary Data: 1. Press release: Standard smartphone charger to dominate in two years http://www. theregister. co. uk/2010/12/29/standard_charger/. 2. Cell Phone Battery Guide. 3. Number of Cell Phones Worldwide Hits 4. 6B. CBS News. 2010-02-15. http://www. cbsnews. com/stories/2010/02/15/business/main6209772. shtml. 4. Nokia Market Share Slides Gartner http://online. wsj. om/article/BT-CO-20110209-705792. html 5. Health and Environment Science Milestones 3. 2 Survey Questionnaire: Answers to the questions posed during an interview can be recorded by writing them down (either during the interview itself or immediately after the interview) or by tape-recording the responses, or by a combinati on of both. Interviews can be conducted with varying degrees of flexibility. The two extremes, high and low degree of flexibility, are described below: High degree of flexibility: The unstructured or loosely structured method of asking questions can be used for interviewing individuals as well as groups of key informants. A flexible method of interviewing is useful if a researcher has as yet little understanding of the problem or situation he is investigating, or if the topic is sensitive. It is frequently applied in exploratory studies. The instrument used may be called an interview guide or interview schedule. Low degree of flexibility: Less flexible methods of interviewing are useful when the researcher is relatively knowledgeable about expected answers or when the number of respondents being interviewed is relatively large. Then questionnaires may be used with a fixed list of questions in a standard sequence, which have mainly fixed or pre-categorized answers. We have attached the survey question papers at the end of the report. And the analyzing of answer is: The Bad Effects |Yes |No | |Mobile kills time |25% |75% | |Destroying young generation |63. 64% | 36. 36% | |Harmful for health | 90% |10% | |Breaking close relation |36. 36% |6 3. 64% | |Making us idle |27. 7% |72. 73% | |Bad offers provide d |18. 18% |81. 82% | |Current charges |63. 64% |36. 36% | |Increasing eve teasing |27. 27% |72. 73% | [pic] 3. 3 Analyzing: The Social Impact of Mobile Telephony Mobile telephony is without doubt one of the most explosive developments ever to have taken place in the telecommunications industry. By the end of 1990 there were just 11 million cellular subscribers world-wide; eight years later that figure had jumped to 320 million and is now forecast by the ITU to exceed 550million by the end of next year. Penetration rates in the Nordic countries were close to 60% by September 1999, led by Finland (63%), Norway (58%), Iceland (56%) and Sweden (53%). Mobile growth around the world has also been nothing short of astonishing. China posted an 87% combined annual subscriber growth rate from 1995 to 1998, with other major economies like Brazil (82%) and South Africa (67%) not far behind. For the world’s poorest countries, cellular telephony and wireless local loop systems represent the best chance yet of bringing the power of telecommunications to economically disadvantaged or isolated communities. Cambodia, for example, is one of only half a dozen countries in the world where cellular subscribers already outnumber fixed-line subscribers. Without doubt, mobile telephony offers enormous advantages – added convenience, greater personal security, and the ability to take advantage of ‘dead’ time to do business on the move. But the picture isn’t all rosy. Like most young technologies, mobile telephony is experiencing its share of teething troubles, including concerns about environmental impact, health and safety, and, of course, the social changes being wrought by a technology which, by making us permanently contactable, is having a profound effect on our interpersonal interaction. A Steel-and-Concrete Jungle Many cities around the world are becoming blighted by a gaggle of ugly mobile antennae, which spoil once-pleasant views, detract from the authenticity of historical areas, and exacerbate the often already overwhelming presence of intrusive urban infrastructure such as electricity poles, telephone lines, traffic management equipment and signage. Predictably, environmental complaints have been the loudest in developed countries, where zoning laws, property rights and environmental obligations are often more strictly enforced, and where reliable access to a range of communications services is, in any case, largely taken for granted. Communities in developing countries are, conversely, often so grateful for modern communications infrastructure that they are happy enough – for the moment at least – to turn a blind eye to environmental aesthetics. In order to avoid problems with environmental groups and local communities – which can be potentially costly in terms of both legal fees and delays in network roll-out – many equipment manufacturers and operators are now working on ways to reduce the environmental impact of cellular antennas. In the Central Business Districts of large, modern cities, the problem is relatively easily solved by simply integrating a large number of small antennas into the facades of tall buildings. In suburban and semi-rural areas, on the other hand, the large, steel-grey structures needed to support larger cells are harder to hide – yet some operators have nonetheless come up with innovative solutions. In South Africa, for example, at least one operator has taken to camouflaging GSM towers in tropical palm trees – with surprisingly successful results. Elsewhere, the tall spires of churches and cathedrals are being used to hide antennas, representing a positive solution for both the general public and the religious organizations which suddenly find themselves with profitable antenna-site rental on their hands. Etiquette for the Modern Age When it comes to the undesirable side-effects of an increasingly ‘unwired’ world, poor mobile phone etiquette is today without doubt the world’s biggest collective gripe. Many companies and organizations are now taking active steps to cultivate more socially acceptable use of mobile phones, among them many of the biggest cellular operators and leading equipment vendors. Most, in fact, have now produced booklets on mobile etiquette, and have a policy of asking their own staff to turn off their phones while in meetings. At Harrod’s, in London, shoppers are asked politely to turn off their phones as they enter the store. And many entertainment venues now make announcements before the beginning of each performance asking members of the audience to switch off before the lights go down. One of Europe’s bigger mobile operators recently took the offensive by launching an advertising campaign aimed at encouraging more responsible and considerate use of cell phones. The campaign, which began with a series of cinema advertisements reminding people to turn off their phones before the movie, is targeted at people who not only take calls in socially inappropriate places, like restaurants, live entertainment events or churches, but speak so loudly that everyone in the immediate vicinity is obliged to listen to their call. This intrusive aspect of mobile telephony recently prompted a columnist in the New York Times to publish an article denouncing the technology as the ‘real’ Y2K virus. Aside from being scathingly critical of the growing number of people inconsiderate enough to inflict their calls on other restaurant diners, theatre-goers and the like, the article pointed to a more insidious problem – the tendency for mobile technologies to lead to overwork and exploitation. Indeed, growing numbers of cell phone users can frequently be heard to complain that their company now expects them to be available virtually 24 hours a day. Always contactable has come to mean always available, to the point where people are finding work taking over their evenings, weekends and even holidays. A Complex Dilemma While most handset manufacturers say the answer to this problem is simply to turn off the phone, this simple action can be a hard one for many people, especially in times of increasing stress at work. Older employees fear being considered out of touch with new working methods; younger staffers fear being passed over for promotion in favour of more ‘wired’ colleagues. Solving problems of etiquette and over-connectedness requires action from two separate camps. Mobile users need to become more aware of the fact that being interrupted during a face-to-face meeting or social engagement, or having to listen to loud conversations that don’t concern them, is a source of annoyance to most people. Mobile phone users should turn their handsets off whenever receiving a call would be inappropriate – for example, in any public place where others are in close proximity, at religious services, funerals, weddings, or in quiet places like nature reserves. New technologies like GSM’s Simple Message Service (SMS), call diversion and voice mail, and discreetly vibrating cell phones leave little excuse for bad manners. In an exceptional case when taking a call in company is unavoidable, users should excuse themselves before answering the phone, and then go to a quiet place where they can sort out their business in private. The second camp is companies – and this means colleagues and immediate bosses, not just senior management. Companies need to accord a greater amount of respect to employees’ right to personal time. Ideally they should define a corporate policy on out-of-hours calls, and ensure staff stick to it. Not only will a responsible, respectful policy on mobile phone use keep employees happier and more motivated, it will ultimately translate into greater efficiencies, since staff who don’t fear constant interruptions are more likely to make themselves available to deal with a real emergency. Safety in Numbers When people are talking on a mobile phone, they’re often paying less attention than they should to what’s going on around them. This can be dangerous in certain situations, such as around building sites or – particularly – when driving a car. One extreme case, which came to light on the international press wire services this summer, told of a man picked up while driving in the Israeli town of Netanya with a mobile phone glued to each ear. The man had become so engrossed in his conversations that he had taken to steering with his elbows – and was flagged down by a policewoman who had noticed his car weaving treacherously from side to side. While this is an exaggerated example, the use of mobile phones while driving is considered sufficiently dangerous by many governments that it is banned in at least a dozen countries, including Australia, Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. Social Outcasts or New Freedoms? The problem of social alienation is perhaps the hardest to pin down, yet is potentially one of the most destructive results of a world over-reliant on wireless communications. Sociologists are already beginning to note that many people, especially those under 30 years old, are spending a great deal of time speaking to people they are not with, at the expense of those who are actually there. A telling example comes from Finland, which has over 60% mobile penetration. There, entire groups of young people sitting together are frequently seen to be talking on their mobile phones to absent friends and colleagues. It’s the ultimate in social alienation, and indicative, say some, of a trend which threatens to eat away at our sense of social cohesion. Whether it’s the novelty of the technology or our simple need to feel wanted, the human brain seems to register incoming electronic signals as inherently more urgent and important than the interpersonal signals coming from a fellow human being in front of us. Team this with an almost universal desire to avoid personal contact – witness the popularity of every kind of impersonal invention, from e-mail and the Internet to automatic teller machines – and it’s clear that alienation could prove a serious side effect of a technology whose selling point until now has often focused on slogans like It’s about communications between people or Connecting People. On the other hand cellular telephony has brought great and new freedoms for youngsters – and increased security and peace of mind for their parents. It is now possible for young people equipped with cellphones to stay in touch with their parents and for parents to stay in touch with their children. This can help reduce or eliminate the need for meaningless restrictions on young people that were only in place because of parents’ anxiety as to their childrens’ activities or whereabouts. Costs need not even be a major issue, since these can be controlled through the use of pre-paid cards. On personal life of teens This includes examples of applications and uses of mobile phones, which drastically impact to the personal lives of teens. Some of the potential areas may include: †¢ Accessibility †¢ Emancipation †¢ Safety †¢ Individuality, status and confidence †¢ Competence in communications †¢ Communications and connectedness †¢ Amusing †¢ Confidentiality †¢ Planned life †¢ Time management This issue represents any improvements in the relationship of individuals with their family and friends. This may be related to the personal improvements in the previous section but the emphasis is not on the person but more on the relations with family and friends. But there are situations were children especially teens neglect food, parents, relations, kith and kin while using their cell phones. Specially while messaging. This drastically affects their personal life. On the other hand there are many health hazards to which teens and children become target. The radio-frequencies damage the tissues and genes of their young body very soon. A Thought for a Digital Age Aside from yet-unanswered questions relating to health, the positive use of mobile technologies lies largely in our hands – in the hands of government, when it comes to environmental issues and safety regulations; in the hands of operators, who can do much to ensure the smooth integration of the technology into our society, both in terms of equipment design and aesthetics, and through initiatives which help train people in mobile phone etiquette; in the hands of employers, who can take pains to ensure staff with corporate mobiles are not abused; and ultimately, in the hands of users, who need to cultivate a greater level of awareness and work to ensure that their phone use does not negatively impact the lives of those around them. With a little effort on everyone’s part, the benefits of mobile connectivity should serve to enhance our experience of life, offering us more freedom, and ultimately creating a better society in which people really do feel closer together. Health Effect of Mobile Phone: The effect mobile phone radiation has 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 June 2009[update], there were more than 4. 3 billion users worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range, which some believe may be harmful to human health. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation. A large body of research exists, both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals and in humans, of which the majority shows no definite causative relationship between exposure to mobile phones and harmful biological effects in humans. The World Health Organization, based upon the majority view of scientific and medical communities, has stated that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects. 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 effects of mobile phone radiations. 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. Radiation absorption [pic] Calculated specific absorbed radiation (SAR) distribution in an anatomical model of head next to a 125 mW dipole antenna. Peak SAR is 9. 5 W/kg averaged over a 1 mg cube. (USAF/AFRL). Part 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 radiation 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. Thermal effects 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 brains 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 reticular 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. Non-thermal effects The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. Whether these modulations have biological significance has been subject to debate. Some researchers have argued that so-called non-thermal effects could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example, has argued that there are several thermo receptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures. Other researchers believe the stress proteins are unrelated to thermal effects, since they occur for both extremely low frequencies (ELF) and radio frequencies (RF), which have very different energy levels. Another preliminary study published in 2011 by The Journal of the American Medical Association conducted using fluoride oxy glucose injections and positron emission tomography concluded that exposure to radiofrequency signal waves within parts of the brain closest to the cell phone antenna resulted in increased levels of glucose metabolism, but the clinical significance of this finding is unknown. Blood-brain barrier effects Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Persson, Eberhardt, nd 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 cell or animal studies. Cancer 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 (BfS) 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 multi national 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 Bio effects 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 tumour 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 testing; 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 testing. The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it ca utiously 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 conclus ions 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 tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumo ur location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, 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 Orebro 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 criticised 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. 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 ye ars 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. Cognitive effects 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. Ele ctromagnetic hypersensitivity 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. Genotoxic effects A large early 2009 meta-study of 101 scientific publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields shows that 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not. 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 â€Å"†¦due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells †¦Ã¢â‚¬ . 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. In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry L ai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards. Later, 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. Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences. Sleep and EEG effects Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure, most other papers have found significant effects on sleep. Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants broken sleep) actually improved. While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent, a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure. German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 30%). Health hazards of base stations Another area of concern is the radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such as base stations and their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of the antenna because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (see Safety standards and licensing below). Some countries however (such as South Africa for example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations. Several surveys have found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who live close to base stations. However, there are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure. Self-report studies can also be vulnerable to the nocebo effect. Two double-blind placebo-controlled trials conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms. The Essex study found that subjects were unable to tell whether they were being exposed to electromagnetic fields or not, and that sensitive subjects reported lower well-being independently of exposure. The principal investigator concluded It is clear that sensitive individuals are suffering real symptoms and often have a poor quality of life. It is now important to determine what other factors could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and treatment strategies can be developed. Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters. This recommendation was modified in 2003 to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report. The Agence francaise de securite sanitaire environnementale currently says that there is no demonstrated short term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long term effects, and that its easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements. Occupational health hazards Telecommunication workers who spend time at a short distance from the active equipment, for the purposes of testing, maintenance, installation, etcetera, may be at risk of much greater exposure than the general population. Many times base stations are not turned off during maintenance, but the power being sent through to the antennas is cut off, so that the workers do not have to work near live antennas. A variety of studies over the past 50 years have been done on workers exposed to high RF radiation levels; studies including radar laboratory workers, military radar workers, electrical workers, and amateur radio operators. Most of these studies found no increase in cancer rates over the general population or a control group. Many positive results could have been attributed to other work environment conditions, and many negative results of reduced cancer rates also occurred. Safety standards and licensing In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonize the different standards in existence. Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation. Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities. The safety standards in the U. S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain sensitive areas (classrooms, for example). 4. Conclusion: We have found from the study that students are not aware of the bad uses of mobile phone. Rather they think it is important for them. Not only that they use it mostly for 1-2 hours. They also don’t know its harmful for their health. So, we recommend to launch a campaign with a view to helping students know about mobile’s bad side. Thus mobile phones have both positive and negative impacts on human ambiance. But as a saying goes- good thing highlighted can efface bad ones- lets us look at the advantages more than the demerits aiming greater heights. 5. Bibliography 1. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mobile_phone 2. www. themobilestore. in/ 3. http://www. gsmandroid. com/2011-ces-smartphones/214/ 4. Health and Environment Science Milestones 5. Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations. Fact sheet N °193. World Health Organization 6. top-callingcards. com/ 7. www. slideshare. net 8. www. textbooksrus. com 9. NTERPHONE Study Group (2010). Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (3): 1ndash20. doi:10. 1093/ije/dyq079. PMID  2048383 Impact of mobile phone The answers that you give are highly appreciated. Please provide the information that is request ed for. Confidentiality is guaranteed and no third party will have access to your details. Name†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. Age†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. Sex†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Occupation†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. e-mail†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Place of work†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 1) Mobile phone is essential for what types of people? ? Business man ? Service holder ? Student 2) What do you mainly use your mobile phone for? ? Calling ? SMS ? Internet browsing 3) How many hours do you speak on the phone daily? ? Less than 1 hour ? 1-2 hours ? More than 2 hours 4) Is mobile phone killing your time? ? Yes? No 5) Do you think mobile phone is destroying young generation? ? Yes? No 6) What you think is it harmful for our health? ? Yes? No 7) Do you think is it breaking our close (face to face) relation? ? Yes? No 8) What types of mobile phone do you like? ? Multimedia phone ? Normal phone ? G phone 9) What do you think our mobile phone company is giving you right offers? ? Yes? No 10) Are you happy with the current charges of the services? ? Yes? No 11) Is people use to telling lie fore mobile phone? ? Yes? No 12) What you think mobile phone is increasing eve teasing? ? Yes? No 13) Is it making us idle? ? Yes? No 14) Please give some example about bad effect of mobile phone. (a)†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. (b)†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. (c)†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. (d)†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. (e)†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã ¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 15) Please give your comment about mobile phone. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦