Cell phone mania
Are we paying a high price for this convenience and if so is there anything we can do about it?
© Robert Anderson PhD
No appliance of our time has found more consumer acceptance than the cell phone. It has become almost part of our anatomy. This ubiquitous electronic wonder now disturbs the silence of doctor’s waiting rooms, lectures and even the odd funeral. Let’s face it, cell phones have become an invaluable component of our lives and since it seems everyone has one, they must, ipso facto, be safe. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. As the number of cell phone users grows,i so does the evidence that this wonder of the telecommunication age may not be such a boon. We may be paying a high price for the convenience.
Some of you are probably old enough to remember the cigarette being marketed as a symbol of sophistication and cool, and that, despite numerous studies demonstrating a link between smoking and cancer which were countered at every step by industry paid studies, it took an insider to blow the whistle on the tobacco industry. Unfortunately, the tele-communications industry seems to be shaping up in much the same way. A number of studies have clearly demonstrated that after exposure to electromagnetic fields cells show a significant increase in DNA damage. Worse still, the UK government-commissioned Stewart Report (2000) found that this damage to DNA was also seen in the next generation of cells. Now damaged DNA is regarded as one of the many possible causes of cancer. Yet, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting a cautious approach to cell-phone use, the cell-phone industry maintains that this technology is completely safe.
It was recently revealed that the incidence of brain tumours in Western Australia rose parallel with the increase in cell phone use. The Medical Journal of Australia reported that Dr Andrew Davidsonii believes that the country's cancer registry data – which shows that from 1982 to 1992 the incidence of brain tumours at a hospital in Western Australia increased 50 percent for men and 62 percent for women - is due to the use of cellular phones. Brain cancer is a rare form of cancer and, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), makes up only 1% of all cancer cases in older people. Thus any increases become immediately obvious, even though these cancers take years to develop.
The reluctance of the cell-phone industry to participate in safety studies was demonstrated by their lack of willingness to even reply to Dr Davidson’s many requests for information and help. Lee Atwater and Mike Synar are two US political figures who died of brain cancer in the 1990s following heavy cell-phone use during political campaigns. Although this is anecdotal evidence, it is the kind of anecdotal evidence that justifies responsible follow-up, particularly given additional evidence now coming to light and the increasingly heavy use of cell phones by children.
Millions have been spent worldwide in funding studies that measure biological effects of EMR (electro magnetic radiation), but not so much on cell phone effects. One prominent scientist, Dr George Carlo, was employed by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association to head a $25 million research programme that, in the words of the industry, would reassure the public that cell-phones are safe. Industry officials maintained that “thousands of studies” already existed, but they were willing to prove once and for all that their products had the safety of consumers at heart. It was not long before it became obvious to Dr Carlo (insider and now whistleblower) that in fact few studies had ever been done on cell phones, and those were perfunctory at best. He vowed to follow the science wherever it led and it became increasingly evident that there was no consensus as to the safety from radiation every time we placed cell-phones to our heads. For example, Hardell and others examined the relationship between the side of the head habitually used in cell-phone operation and a possible relationship to the site of brain tumours.iii They found the risk for ipsilateral (same side) use significantly increased the risk for astrocytoma for all types of phones.
One by one, alarming scientific signs appeared in Dr Carlo’s programme, so much so that the industry funding rapidly evaporated. Cell phone radiation was found to compromise the blood brain-barrier: the blockade preventing toxins entering the brain cavity. He also found that radio frequency radiation created micronuclei in the blood cells. This was a type of damage known to be a diagnostic marker for cancer.
These findings were not what the industry intended to advertise. Refusing to be silenced, Dr Carlo published his own book, Cell-Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, in an attempt to get the truth out to the public.iv As he said: “You do risk cancer from gabbing away on your cell phone despite media reports and reassuring government statements that say there is no demonstrated danger in using these omnipresent devices.”
Concerning two studies from the US and a third from Denmark, Dr Carlo commented that, “If journalists had paused to consider what the new studies were really saying – and not saying – we’d have a more realistic but less reassuring picture.” In describing the studies, Dr Carlo wrote that they were not laboratory experiments, but “statistical analyses of people who used cell-phones and people who had brain tumours.” His summary was that they had several flaws.
# The US studies, which looked at the period between the early and mid-1990s, dealt with minimal cell phone use, with people who spent an average of 2.5 hours or less a month on their cell-phone. Moreover, most owners had used cell-phones for less than three years. Dr Carlo said, millions use their cell phones for 20 hours or more a month and have been doing so for many years.
# The studies were small and looked at the wrong type of brain tumours. “Tumours in almost all patients were located in interior regions of the skull that couldn’t be reached by cell-phone radiation, which penetrates only two inches inside adult skulls.” Dr Carlo made the point that there is little point in proving the obvious fact that such tumours could not be caused by cell-phone use.
# In an NCI study of 782 brain-cancer patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, it was admitted that “a much larger sample would be required” to properly detect radiation risks. The other US study, using just 469 brain cancer patients, failed to mention its own size limitation when published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
# That same study also neglected what Dr Carlo described as “its most chilling finding” – this was the doubling of cancer risk in 35 of the patients from a small subgroup who developed neuroepithelial tumours. These are tumours near the side of the head, close to the arial of the cell-phone.
The studies thus failed to disprove the alarming findings of laboratory experiments that appear to link cell-phones to cancer by showing that human blood cells exposed to cell-phone radiation suffer genetic damage. This is the type of damage considered a diagnostic marker of “high risk” in developing tumours.
Dr Carlo commented: “Will people who begin using cell-phones as children or teens be high risks for developing brain cancer in their 40s or 50s?” He said there are no studies answering that question and it will take as long as 20 years before long-term epidemiological studies can give us truly comforting assurance or warn of real danger.
Studies have shown that 30% of radiation from a cell phone aerial is absorbed directly into the brain of the user.v Dr Carlo recommend that, until we know the final results, cell-phone users should take such simple precautions as using a headset in a way that keeps the radiation-emitting arial away from their heads.
An excellent example is the RF3 iFit Cellular headset using AIRCOM-2 technology.vi Many conventional headsets use wire to deliver sound to the earpiece that may unfortunately also deliver RF energy directly to your head. Unlike these, the RF3 uses technology, which genuinely reduces SAR levels (Specific Absorption Rate) by 99%. The RF3 Cellular Headset is the world's first headset to be developed using AirCom™ Technology. This technology utilizes a state-of-the-art SPL enhanced sound chamber that delivers a crystal clear sound through an air-filled wireless tube (similar to a doctor’s stethoscope). By replacing the wire with AirCom™ Technology, the RF3 Cellular Headset reduces the possibility of radiation from reaching your head. So, unlike many of the ‘gadgets’ for reducing exposure, this really does work.
Despite the funding and plenty of public exposure to the possible threat, litigation is growing against the cell-phone industry. Unfortunately, because of a scarcity of expert witnesses able to cite strong scientific data establishing a link, the litigation fails to stick and the industry escapes unscathed.
The latest craze for kids is fashionable faceplates that are interchangeable in multi colours and that are emblazoned with colourful cartoon characters – designed to appeal to the “younger user.” The penetration of radiation into the skull of a child is far greater than into the head of an adult.
Read the fine print
Dr Carlo warns that people should, “read the fine print of any new studies that come in.” Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised, “To only use them when absolutely necessary and then very briefly.” Why, if there’s no danger? It is significant that three officials of the FDA refused to be interviewed by the journalist covering Dr Carlo’s work.vii
Final word
We can leave the final word to Professor Neil Cherry who said: “the risks of cell phone use are “extremely high. There are 66 epidemiological studies showing that electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum increase brain tumours in human populations. Two of those studies are for particular brain tumours from cell phones.”
The problem is of course that our modern world relies heavily on instant communication provided by cell phones. Immediate cell-phone access can mean the difference between crunching a business and losing a contract and sometimes it can even mean the difference between life and death, but we need to be told of the potential risks of this technology and how we can protect ourselves.
I still use a cell phone, but, when I do, I use an RF 3 headset. Using technology such as the RF 3 Cellular Headset we can still make use of this ubiquitous convenience, the cell phone, while screening out 99% of the radiation to the head.
N.B. RF3 Cellular Headsets are available in New Zealand from www.rf3.co.nz or by calling 0800 906 906.
Robert Anderson BSc (Hons), PhD
(4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008)
Robert Anderson was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics (now Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility) www.psgr.org.nz. He authored The Final Pollution: Genetic Apocalypse, Exploding the Myth of Genetic Engineering and several other publications on environmental, health and social justice issues.
View Robert Anderson’s lectures on this site.
Address enquiries for Robert Anderson's publications to naturesstar@xtra.co.nz
References We regret the references have been lost due to computer glitches. Nevertheless, the facts stand and are available on the Internet.