Is Your Cell
Phone Killing You?
by Gordon Bass
December 1999
There's more data suggesting problems with
the radiation from cell phones than the FDA had when it
banned silicone breast implants. Are we all at risk?
More
than 80 million Americans use a mobile phone. By 2002
another 30 million people will be signed up for service.
Yet there's mounting scientific evidence that using a
mobile phone is risky. After all, "for the first time
in history, we are holding a high-powered transmitter
against the head," said Ross Adey, a professor of
biochemistry at the University of California at Riverside.
And that transmitter is about an inch from your brain.
Say What?
When you talk on your mobile phone, your
voice is transmitted from the antenna as radio frequency
radiation (RFR) between 800MHz and 1,990MHz—a range
that's right in the middle of microwave territory. Not
surprisingly, it now appears that exposure to this micro
wave RFR may have serious health consequences. In 1993,
following a lawsuit filed by a Florida man who claimed his
wife's brain tumor had been caused by her mobile phone,
the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
formed Wireless Technology Research (WTR) and granted it
more than $25 million to study possible health risks of
mobile phone use. After six years of study, WTR made some
startling conclusions.
"We found evidence of genetic
damage in human blood," said George Carlo, WTR's
chairman. "We have suggestions of excessive mortality
from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have
very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher
risk of neuroepithelial tumors. We now have more data
suggesting problems with wireless phones than the FDA had
when it banned silicone breast implants."
So why isn't the cellular
telecommunications industry acting? The WTR research was
funded by the CTIA, which is bankrolled by the companies
that produce mobile phones and communications
infrastructure. The CTIA hasn't exactly encouraged
publication of the results.
Motorola, a member of the CTIA and the
world's No. 2 manufacturer of mobile phones, has funded
extensive research programs to explore possible health
effects associated with the use of mobile phones.
"Radio products that meet established guidelines pose
no known health risk," said Norman Sandler, director
of global strategic issues for Motorola. The company can
provide reams of study results that indicate an
unequivocal absence of health risks. A few questionable
results have been either deemed statistically
insignificant or earmarked for further study.
Dial C for Cancer
Jerry Phillips, who has a doctorate in
biochemistry, worked with U.C. Riverside's Adey on
Motorola-funded research beginning in 1991. "The
relationship [with Motorola] was pleasant for the first
few years, until we began to get some data," said
Phillips. Things shifted when RFR exposure was linked to
changes in the incidence of brain tumors in rats.
"Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA
damage and RF radiation in the same breath," Phillips
said.
"Motorola has been manipulative of
research that we and others have reported to them,"
said Adey. "Essentially they cut us off because we
were too inquisitive." Motorola's Sandler vehemently
denies this claim. Interestingly, one of Adey's studies
found that certain frequencies of RFR actually decreased
the incidence of tumors in rats. You'd expect this to be
fantastic news for Motorola—imagine an ad campaign
touting the health benefits of mobile phone use. But Adey
said the company was unwilling to recognize results that
indicated any biological effects of RFR whatsoever, either
positive or negative.
Phillips, Adey, and others said they see
a strong parallel between what's happening now and the
decades of denial by the tobacco industry in the face of
mounting scientific evidence that tobacco was harmful.
Jo-Anne Basile, vice president of external and industry
relations for the CTIA, strongly disagrees. "A more
inaccurate comparison could not be made," she said.
"The industry has never tried to withhold any
information or any negative comments."
It's still unclear exactly how RFR
exposure and cancer may be linked. When you're talking on
your mobile phone, some 40 percent of the radiated energy
is absorbed by your head and hand. But the level of
radiation generally isn't enough to produce significant
heat in the human head. So what's causing problems?
"That's the big question," said Phillips.
"If I knew, I'd be shaking hands with the king of
Sweden instead of worrying about funding research."
Many signs point to DNA damage as the
likely culprit. Adey has found a link between
low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain
cells. Phillips suggests that RFR may not damage DNA but
may somehow hinder the ability of DNA to repair itself
when it's damaged by natural causes.
"What we need to know is whether
there's a direct interaction between RFR and DNA,"
said Phillips. Phillips said that like Carlo and Adey, he
is not on a mission to bring down the telecommunications
giants. In fact, all three researchers own mobile phones
that they use on a limited basis. What they said they
would most like is for the industry to accept their
findings, allow them to be made public, and then let
consumers decide how to react. "What's wrong is
keeping information from the public," said Carlo.
The telecommunications industry and
research scientists agree that more work is needed. One
major study, led by the World Health Organization, is
investigating RFR exposure, but results aren't due until
2005. In the meantime, there's a quick and inexpensive way
for mobile phone addicts to limit exposure to RFR: Use a
headset. Some are so small that they consist of an ear bud
and a lapel microphone, allowing the phone to be
positioned safely away from the user's head. And that's
the best place to keep it while the jury deliberates.
TOP
