TIME Magazine - How Safe Is Your Cell Phone?

TIME Magazine Article By Bryan Walsh Monday, Mar. 15, 2010


It takes a little extra work to get in touch with Andrea Boland. The Maine state representative answers e-mails and lists her business and home phone numbers on the Web. But unlike many politicians surgically attached to their BlackBerrys, she keeps her cell switched off unless she's expecting a call. And if she has her way, everyone in Maine — and perhaps, eventually, the rest of the U.S. — will similarly think twice before jabbering away on their mobiles.

In March, Maine's legislature will begin debating a bill she submitted that would require manufacturers to put a warning label on every cell phone sold in the state declaring, "This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer." Her warning would continue, "Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body." (See a report card on cell phones' radiation.)

For those of you now eyeing your cell phones suspiciously, it's worth noting that both the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization say there isn't evidence to support the assertion that cell phones are a public-health threat. But a number of scientists are worried that there has been a dangerous rush to declare cell phones safe, using studies they feel are inadequate and too often weighted toward the wireless industry's interests. An analysis published by University of Washington neurologist Henry Lai determined that far more independent studies than industry-funded studies have found at least some type of biological effect from cell-phone exposure. (See pictures of the cell phone's history.)

Several countries — including Finland, Israel and France — have issued guidelines for cell-phone use. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who began researching the issue when his wife was expecting their first child, is hoping his city will adopt legislation that would have manufacturers print radiation information on cell-phone packaging and manuals and require retailers to display the data on the sales floor.

With 270 million Americans and 4 billion people around the world using cell phones — and more signing up every day — a strong link between mobiles and cancer could have major public-health implications. As cell phones make and take calls, they emit low-level radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Stronger than FM radio signals, these RF waves are still a billionth the intensity of known carcinogenic radiation like X-rays. (See pictures from an X-ray studio.)

The wireless industry contends that RF radiation lacks the strength to alter molecules in the human body; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) maximum for cell-phone-signal exposure is intended to prevent RF radiation from heating tissue to the point that cells are damaged. Cell-phone RF radiation's "effect on the body, at least at this time, appears to be insufficient to produce genetic damage typically associated with developing cancer," Dr. Robert Hoover, director of the National Cancer Institute's Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program, testified at a 2008 congressional hearing.

But the body of research is far from conclusive. In 1995, Lai co-wrote a study showing that a single two-hour exposure of RF radiation — at levels considered safe by U.S. standards — produced the sort of genetic damage in rats' brain cells that can lead to cancer. Though subsequent researchers — often funded in part by the wireless industry — failed to replicate Lai's results, a 2004 European Union — funded study reported similar findings.

(2 of 2)

Dariusz Leszczynski, a research professor at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki, has done studies indicating that RF radiation may create a stress reaction in the cells that line blood vessels, leading to a dangerous breach in the blood-brain barrier. "Mobile-phone radiation may be able to indirectly hurt cells, perhaps by interfering with their ability to repair normal DNA damage," he says. "Given the scientific uncertainty, it's premature to say the use of cell phones is safe."

If RF radiation increases the chances of developing brain cancer, it should show up in long-term studies of cell-phone users. But many epidemiological studies have found no clear connection, including a 2007 Danish Cancer Society study of 421,000 cell-phone users, which led many in the media to conclude that mobiles are harmless. To date, "peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a risk," says John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA, a global wireless association. (See how to prevent illness at any age.)

There are problems with many of these studies, however. For starters, the Danish one — which reviewed the medical records of people who had signed up for cell phones from 1982 to 1995 — didn't include all the business users, who were among the earliest adopters and most intensive users, because they were not billed directly.

Also, the study looked only at tumors that were diagnosed by 2002 — not long after daily use of cell phones became widespread. Brain cancers can take several decades to develop, so it might be many years before a measurable bump in cancer rates shows up. "The latency period we have is far too short," says Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, a cancer researcher at Israel's Gertner Institute whose epidemiological studies have found some connections between cell-phone use and salivary-gland tumors. "And today, people are using the phone much more heavily." (See TIME's special report "How to Live 100 Years.")

Sadetzki served as Israel's principal investigator in the Interphone study, which was conducted over the past several years by 13 countries, most of them European. The Interphone results initially were to be published in 2006, but the final report has been postponed repeatedly, and the study investigators are reportedly deeply divided. In the U.S., which isn't one of the Interphone countries, the National Toxicology Program is launching studies of the health effects of cell phones. But peer-reviewed results won't be available until at least 2014.

That's a long time to wait for definitive data. The good news is that there are easy ways for those concerned about RF radiation to cut down on exposure. Using your cell phone's speaker or connecting a wired headset — while keeping the handset away from your body — drastically reduces RF exposure. (Bluetooth headsets help too, but they still emit some radiation.) And given the potentially more serious risks for children, who have thinner skulls than adults, parents might want to wait before handing teens their first phone — or at least ensure they use it mostly for texting.

Meanwhile, a start-up, Pong Research, is selling cell-phone cases that significantly reduce radiation exposure by channeling waves away from the head. Says Alfred Wong, Pong's chief scientist and a professor emeritus of physics at UCLA: "I think it's best to avoid as much of the risk as possible until the verdict is in."

That's exactly what Boland and other advocates of warning labels are arguing. It's true that cell-phone use has yet to be linked to cancer risk. "Scientifically speaking, we don't have the proof yet," says Sadetzki. "But as a public-health concern, I'm saying we definitely should adopt precautions."

Long-term mobile phone use raises brain tumor risk: study

March 31, 2006
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk for brain tumors, a new Swedish study said on Friday, contradicting the conclusions of other researchers.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Dutch Health Council, in an overview of research from around the world, last year found no evidence radiation from mobile phones and TV towers was harmful. A four-year British survey released in January showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and the most common type of tumor.

However, researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life said they looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and found a link.

"A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and, or wireless telephones and used them a lot," the study said.

"The study also shows that the rise in risk is noticeable for tumors on the side of the head where the phone was said to be used," it added.

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones, for instance of who make mobile phone calls for 2,000 hours or more in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used.

"The way to get the risk down is to use handsfree," he told Reuters.

He said his study was the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless phone, which has been around in Sweden in a portable form since 1984, longer than in many other countries.

RF-Induced DNA Breaks Reported in China

September 29, 2005

In Microwve News this article appeared. Sooner or later the public, government and industry will acknowledge the effects of RF radiation.

RF-Induced DNA Breaks Reported in China

Research scientists in China have found that relatively low-level RF radiation can lead to DNA breaks, according to a briefing paper prepared for the cell phone industry obtained by Microwave News.

At the 4th International Seminar on EMFs and Biological Effects, held in Kunming China, September 12-16, Zhengping Xu of the Zhejiang University School of Medicine reported that cells exposed to a pulsed 1800 MHz RF radiation at an SAR of 3 W/Kg for 24 hours showed a statistically significant increase in DNA damage. The Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), an industry lobbying group based in Brussels, circulated the news in a September 22 Research Briefing.

Xu’s Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory now joins a growing number of other labs that have found RF-induced DNA breaks. The effect was first reported more than a decade ago by Henry Lai and N.P. Singh of the University of Washington, Seattle (see MWN, N/D94). From the outset, Lai and Singh’s work has been repeatedly assailed by the cell phone industry and their consultants —most recently by Sheila Johnston and Vijayalaxmi, two members of the board of directors of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (see March 29 entry below. They ciaimed to have refuted the Lai-Singh findings.

Last year, the European Union-sponsored REFLEX Project announced that 1800 MHz radiation could lead to DNA breaks. Those results were published this summer in Mutation Research.

The MMF also noted that C.K. Chou of Motorola (a member of the MMF) complained at the meeting that it is difficult to publish “negative” results in China. (WHO ’s Mike Repacholi made a similar charge at the last Chinese EMF seminar held in Guilin in 2003, according to the MMF.) Xu disputed this, the MMF added.

Time To Stop the WHO Charade on EMF Exposures

In Microwave News- http://www.microwavenews.com
July 5, 2005

Time To Stop the WHO Charade

Now we know what Mike Repacholi has been doing since the infamous Mike-and-Leeka flip-flop of 2003. Back then Repacholi and his assistant Leeka Kheifets decided that there was no need to apply the precautionary principle to EMFs—soon after telling everyone that the time for action had finally arrived.

It appears that for the last two-and-a-half years, when not shuttling from one meeting to another, Mike has been cataloguing ways the WHO can avoid taking precautionary steps to reduce EMF exposures.

Mike’s apologia will be presented next week at a three-day workshop in Ottawa, July 11-13. He calls it a policy framework. We call it a sham. Mike has assembled a list of reasons for doing nothing. Electric utilities and telecom companies could have written the WHO plan. They may well have played a leading role.

You can see where Mike’s sympathies lie from the workshop agenda: the GSM Association, the U.K. National Grid, the American Chemical Council, Shell Canada, have all been invited to speak, together with an assortment of academics, risk consultants and a few of his WHO buddies.

Mike has not even made a pretense of having a balanced program. Absent are labor, consumer and environmental groups, save one small Canadian organization. John Swanson of the National Grid will be in Ottawa, but Alasdair Phillips, England’s leading and most knowledgeable EMF activist, will not be there—no doubt because he would openly challenge Repacholi’s pro-industry sympathies.

Power lines or mobile phones are not really even on the workshop agenda. Only Mike is slated to address the EMF issue. Instead, the Ottawa workshop will address many of the major social risks that are in the news: global warming, mad cow disease, and even a flu pandemic which could wipe out many of us long before the ice caps melt. Mike’s message is loud and clear: Don’t worry about a tiny—and unlikely—EMF health risk when there are more important threats on the horizon.

Back in early 2003, there were enough reasons to invoke the precautionary principle for power-frequency EMFs and for RF from mobile phones. Over the last year, more studies have reaffirmed the need for caution. Three different data sets now implicate long-term use of mobile phones with acoustic tumors: Two from the Öreboro group and one from the Karolinska group. The University of Vienna has found support for Henry Lai and NP Singh’s studies showing that RF radiation can break DNA—these results from the REFLEX research program indicate that RF radiation may well be genotoxic after all. And even more recently, an Australian researcher reported additional evidence that RF can break up DNA.

Just last month, a British team published a paper in the British Medical Journal showing that children living near power lines had higher than expected rates of leukemia. The National Grid’s Swanson is one of the authors of that paper, but at this point he is not slated to discuss it in Ottawa.

Mike has no use for any of this new information —none of it is cited in his framework—because he has already made up his mind that nothing needs to be done. When the REFLEX DNA work first hit the media, Mays Swicord and his gang at Motorola didn’t have to say a word because their man in Geneva, Mike Repacholi of the World Health Organization, was ready to speak for them. Mike offered immediate reassurances that the Vienna results are spurious and may be discounted. “One has to question what went wrong, or was different, for them to get the results they claim,” Mike told the New Scientist.

Mike wants us to believe that his is the voice of reason, but, in fact, it is his views that are out of step with those of many national governments. China, Italy, Switzerland and Russia have all adopted precautionary exposure limits —directly rejecting Mike’s pleas for harmonizing radiation standards. Expert panels in England, France, Germany and Russia have all issued statements discouraging children from using mobile phones.

To his shame, Mike was the only member of Sir William Stewart’s panel to object when, in 2000, it was the first to call for children to avoid cell phones. English kids, like others everywhere, love their mobile phones and use them all the time. Neither they nor most of their parents have ever heard of Sir William’s cautionary advice. But even though largely ignored by consumers, Sir William, with this single recommendation, underscored our ignorance about radiation health effects and prompted continued health research. He set a tone for others to follow.

Sir William’s imperative is to protect public health. That is also supposed to be Mike’s mission at the WHO. But his words and action make it clear that his principal interest is in the well-being of his corporate friends.

As the old saying goes, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a sure bet, that it’s a duck.” Mike’s actions and words are those of an industry operative. And for all we know he may be one.

Mike has repeatedly refused to disclose who is paying for his EMF project and all its conferences and workshops. We do know that WHO does not foot the bill. Mike has to raise his own budget and travel funds. We also know that he found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support —the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses.

But where does all the other money come from? What’s stopping Mike from doing the right thing? Why doesn’t he issue a simple and clear message that EMFs and RF radiation present possible health risks and that, until more answers are in hand, we should try to reduce unnecessary exposures. All he needs to do is to offer a single sentence of advice: Be careful until we know more about the health risks. That’s it. A simple public health message of caution from the World Health Organization.

It's time for the Mike-and-Leeka charade to come to an end. Show us the money, Mike. Show us who’s paying the bills. Maybe then we will know who you are really working for.

WHO refuses experts "reservation" on electrical hypersensitivity

WHO Repacholi et al censor leading expert's reservation - To the benefit of who?

Professor Olle Johansson, a leading world expert into electrical hypersensitivity, attended the October 2004 World Health Organisation "Workshop on EMF Hypersensitivity" in Prague. The organisers have refused to include this formal reservation in the summary of the workshop:
In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized physical impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000 - 290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of sym[p]toms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF)-sources
- The EHS persons have their own handicap organisation; The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive; www.feb.se (the website has an English version). This organisation is included in the Swedish Disability Federation (Handikappförbundens SamarbetsOrgan; HSO).
- Swedish municipalities, of course, have to follow the UN 22 Standard Rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, about the UN 22 Standard Rules, see website: www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm)
Naturally, all initiatives for scientific studies of the impairment EHS must be characterized and marked by this respect and willingness to listen, and the investigations shall have the sole aim to help the persons with this particular impairment. The presently proposed WHO initiative seem to lack this aim and the suggested research programme rather seems to question, throw suspicion on, and - on very flimsy grounds - psychologize the impairment EHS. This is a set-up that completely is in contrast to Rule 13 in the UN 22 Standard Rules which clearly says that scientific investigations of impairments shall, in an unbiased way - and without any prejudice - focus on cause, occurrence and nature and with the sole and explicit purpose to help and support the person with the impairment. Nothing else! ..."

You can read more at FEB - The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive -http://www.feb.se/NEWS/news2005.html#NS20050219

Cell Phone / Microwave Radiation Wake-Up Call

In the March 2005 issue of the University of Washington Magazine

"It's all about science, politics and money, and not necessarily in that order," Slesin says. "Henry and N.P. had the courage to buck the system, and they have paid dearly for that."
In preparing this article, some industry officials didn't return phone calls asking about Lai's work and the controversy surrounding it. Others said they didn't have specific knowledge of the original study and the events it set into motion-it was more than 10 years ago-but they characterized such research as outside mainstream findings, which they say show that wireless technology is safe.
Still others maintain that possible hazards from recent studies could be discounted because those studies focus on older analog phones, which send out a steady wave of radiation. Newer digital phones operate at a lower intensity, sending out a pulsed stream.
A Swedish study published last fall that tracked 750 subjects who had used cell phones for at least 10 years made note of that difference, and included the following caveat:
"At the time the study was conducted, only analog mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years and therefore we cannot determine if the results are confined to the use of analog phones or if the results would be similar after long-term use of digital phones."

But it would be a mistake to use that to support a stance that digital phones are proven safe, according to Slesin. The problem, he says, is that pulsed radiation is more likely than continuous wave radiation to have an effect on living things.
"There is a lot of work out there showing that digital signals are more biologically active," Slesin says. "At this point, no one knows whether the enhanced biological activity might compensate for the weaker signals."
Lai, a soft-spoken bespectacled man with an understated sense of humor-he once deadpanned to a national television reporter that the most difficult part of his research involved getting the rats to use tiny cell phones-still expresses surprise at being at the center of the ongoing, swirling debate.
"I'm just a simple scientist trying to do my research," he says. He sees the path that led to controversy as marked by chance and serendipity.
A Hong Kong native, Lai earned his bachelor's degree in physiology from McGill University in Montreal and came to the UW in 1972 to do graduate work. He earned his doctoral degree in psychology and did post-doc work in pharmacology with Akira Horita. His initial research involved the effects of alcohol on the brain. He also worked on a new compound to treat schizophrenia.
A shift came in 1979. Bill Guy, UW emeritus professor and a pioneer in the field of radio wave physics, offered Lai a chance to do research on microwaves through a grant from the Office of Naval Research.
The pair first examined whether microwaves can affect drug interactions (they can), then if there appears to be an effect on learning (there does). Then, in the early '90s, Singh arrived in Seattle. He approached Lai about joining his lab. "He was an expert on DNA damage," Lai recalls. "I said, 'Well, why not?'"
Singh is one of the world's foremost experts on a DNA analysis called the "comet assay." The assay gets its name from the appearance of a damaged cell. First, the cell is set in a gel and "lysed" or punctured. Then an electric current is run across the cell. When strands of DNA break, the broken pieces are charged. The electric current causes those pieces to migrate through the gel. As a result, a damaged cell takes on the appearance of a comet, with the bits of damaged DNA forming the tail. The longer the tail, the more damage has resulted.
With Singh's expertise now at hand, Lai decided to look at how microwaves affect DNA. Lai and Singh compared rats exposed to a low dose of microwave radiation for two hours to a control group of rats that spent the same amount of time in the exposure device, but didn't receive any radiation. The exposed rats showed about a 30 percent increase in single -strand breaks in brain cell DNA compared to the control group.
As Lai and Singh sought funding to conduct follow-up studies, word of the research began to get out. According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai's research might cause. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public. This was before the study was published in 1995.
A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called "highly suspicious."
"In the 20 years or so that we have conducted experiments, for a variety of funding agencies, we have never encountered anything like this in the management of a scientific contract," the two wrote.
WTR leader George Carlo responded with a six-page letter to then-UW President Richard McCormick, complaining of the "libelous" letter to Microwave News and "a pattern of slanderous conduct by these men over the past several years." The letter closed with a threat of legal action and stated that Lai and Singh should be fired from the project. An answering letter from Vice Provost Steven Olswang stated that the University "encourages legitimate academic discourse" and would not intervene in the dispute.
While Lai and Singh were attempting to do their industry-funded follow-up study, the industry was looking for another opinion. Motorola approached Jerry Phillips, a researcher who worked in a lab at the Veteran's Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. He was investigating electromagnetic fields and their biological effects. The lab had done work with Motorola before, and Phillips was interested. He made a proposal and was funded.
He sent people to Seattle to learn how to do the comet assay. And he decided to expose the animals in his experiment to actual cell phone frequencies. What they found were increases in DNA damage at some levels of exposure and decreases at others.
"That's not unusual," Phillips says. "It happens with chemicals. One dose can do one thing, while a higher or lower dose does the opposite. In this case, if you produce a little bit of DNA damage, you are stimulating the repair mechanisms and you could actually see a net decrease because the repair will be done. However, if you overwhelm the repair mechanism, then you could see an increase.
"Based on the data, I told them that we need to start looking at repair mechanisms," Phillips recalls.
Motorola disagreed. Phillips says he was told the results were not ready for publication, was encouraged to do more work, and was offered additional money to continue the experiment.
"I said as much as I would like the money, this part of the study is done," he recalls. "I said it's time to move on." The study was published in Nov. 1998. Once the findings were released, Phillips' source of funding dried up.
Since then, another group, working out of Washington University in St. Louis with industry funding, has tried to replicate the experiment, but without success. According to Lai and Phillips, that group is doing the study differently, including using a different technique to gauge DNA damage.
"They haven't properly replicated the work that Henry did, or that I did," Phillips says.
In the meantime, recent findings from overseas, more than 10 years after Lai's work, seem to finally be providing support for a closer look at cell phone radiation.
Last fall, the journal Epidemiology published research results from a Swedish group that showed an increase in a rare type of non-cancerous brain tumor among cell phone users on the side of the head where the phone was most often held.
In December, a pan-European organization released results from an extensive four-year study carried out by 12 research groups in seven countries. Known as the REFLEX study, that research found significant increases in DNA damage in human and animal cells exposed to cell phone radiation in the laboratory. While not a cause for alarm, the results, which have yet to be published, underline the need for further study, scientists said (see "Making Waves," page 4).
A spokeswoman for the UK-based Mobile Operators Association called the results "preliminary," adding that, "It is not possible to draw conclusions from this preliminary data."
In 2000, Sir William Stewart, former chair of a British group that looked into the cell phone debate issued a report urging "a precautionary stance" while scientific data is gathered. This January he repeated that warning, adding that children should not use the devices for the time being.
Industry spokesman Farren says his organization sticks to its position. "Any official precautionary measures need to be based on the science," he says. "The majority of studies have shown there are no health effects."
It's a point well taken, Lai says. However, what the science seems to say depends on how you quantify it.
Lai says there have been about 200 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone-related radiation. If you put all the ones that say there is a biological effect on one side and those that say there is no effect on the other, you'd have two piles roughly equal in size. The research splits about 50-50.
"That, in and of itself, is alarming," Lai says. But it's not the whole story. If you divide up the same 200 studies by who sponsored the research, the numbers change.
"When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's about three to one-three out of every four papers shows an effect," Lai says. "Then, if you look at the industry-funded research, it's almost opposite-only one out of every four papers shows an effect."
The problem, he adds, is that there is no longer funding available in the United States that isn't attached to the industry. Lai, for one, refuses to take any more industry money.
"There are too many strings attached," he maintains. "Everyone uses the analogy of the tobacco industry and what happened there. It's like letting the fox watch the henhouse." While the FDA administers cell phone radiation studies, the money comes from the industry, he adds.
Microwave News Editor Slesin says he has pondered why government funding isn't available. His hypothesis is that it's a matter of attitude.
"There is a view out there among many scientists that this is just impossible-the radiation is too weak and there cannot be any effects," Slesin says. "We all know that ionizing radiation is bad. Ions are more reactive, there's no doubt it can lead to cancer, it's nasty stuff."
The people who work with ionizing radiation see EMF radiation-that from electromagnetic fields-as a 97-pound weakling, he continues. They believe it's not capable of doing anything.
"Yet, when you see effects like Henry reported, especially at the low power intensities, you have to ask what is going on to cause this?" he says. "As long as that attitude remains unchanged, you won't get more funding and you don't get anywhere."
As a result, many U.S. scientists have moved on, either focusing on other areas or leaving the research arena altogether, relying on the rest of the world to pick up the slack. In Lai's case, he is pursuing other research directions, where he can get funding. The most promising involves artemisinin, a derivative from the wormwood plant currently used to treat malaria. Lai's research shows it has promise as a powerful anti-cancer agent. Late last year, the UW licensed the technology to a Chinese pharmaceutical company that plans to take it to human trials and, if successful, to market.
After what happened in Loma Linda, Phillips and his wife left research altogether. They now live in Colorado Springs, Colo., where he works for a company that develops science curricula. "I do have a lot of regret for those lost opportunities," Phillips says. "We were really in a position to develop some good basic understandings of how radio frequency affects biological systems."
It's an issue that desperately needs to be explored, according to Slesin. Right now, a solid understanding doesn't exist. If anyone says they absolutely have the answer, he cautions, absolutely don't believe them. "We are swimming in uncertainty."
And the issue becomes increasingly relevant with each passing day.
"We are making some fundamental changes to the electromagnetic environment in which we live," Slesin continues. "Soon entire cities will be online so you can take your laptop anywhere and be on the Internet. What that means is we will all be exposed to electromagnetic radiation 24/7. I don't know if there's a problem, but I think we owe it to society to find out."
In the meantime, Lai prefers to err on the side of caution. He doesn't use a cell phone and requires that cell-savvy family members use headsets. He doesn't see the problem as intractable, just one that needs serious attention. We engineered the technology, he says, and he's confident that we can engineer our way out of any problems. But first, we need to take a close look at the data and admit that there may be a problem.
Either way, the answers will come, given time, Lai says. The question is will we get those answers in the way we want?
"We see effects, but we don't know what the consequences are," Lai says. "With so many people using cell phones, we will eventually know. The largest experiment in the history of the world is already under way. We will know, in about 10 or 15 years, maybe."

-Rob Harrill is the engineering writer in the UW's College of Engineering. Although his children are not allowed cell phones (despite repeated pleas), both he and his wife use one-sparingly.

to read more, go to http://www.microwavenews.com/

Mobile phones tumour risk to young children

UK: Mobile phones tumour risk to young children
"CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists. Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.
The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.
The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the first government-sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged between five and nine using mobiles has increased fivefold in the same period.
In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four studies have caused concern. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones"...
more on Times Online...
12 Jan 2005 Times Online

The Invisible Disease, Gunni Nordstrom

The Invisible Disease, Gunni Nordstrom
In 1962 Rachel Carson in Silent Spring opened the world's eyes to the dangers of products leaking dangerous chemicals into the food chain.
Today we are facing a powerful new concern. It involves millions of people, particularly in the West, who are ill even though their doctors can't make a proper diagnosis. Environmental illnesses are known under a number of names, like Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME), Immune Dysfunction Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Electro-Hypersensitivity, Sick Building Syndrome.
These illnesses have variously been linked to VDUs, mobile phones and masts, electric lights, TVs, and chemicals used in the manufacture of modern appliances.
This is the first book to make the connections...
Read more...

REFLEX Report Highlights - RF-Induced DNA Breaks

REFLEX Report Highlights
RF-Induced DNA Breaks

The final report of the REFLEX project is now available on the Web site of the Verum Foundation. The report summarizes the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries. The total cost of the project, which investigated the effects low-levels of RF radiation on cellular systems, was approximately $3 million.
Experimental data generated in a number of the labs showed that RF radiation could increase the number of DNA breaks in exposed cells, as well as activate a stress response —the production of heat shock proteins. Many of these effects have been reported at scientific conferences over the last few years (see, for example, MWN, J/A01, N/D01 and M/A03).
Franz Adlkofer of the Verum Foundation, who managed the project, has long maintained that genotoxic effects of RF radiation can no longer be denied and warrant more intense investigation. “The now available scientific evidence of such critical events demonstrates the need for intensifying research,” he said on releasing the final report.
Adlkofer stressed that, “Precautionary measures seem to be warranted.”
Studies on power-frequency EMFs were also carried out under the REFLEX project. They supported previous work showing that 50/60 Hz fields could, like RF radiation, increase the frequency of DNA breaks (see MWN, S/O02).
The report has generated quite a bit of press attention in Europe, with reports on the Reuters news wire, BBC News and Nature.com.
The Verum Foundation Web site offers a summary of the report, as well as the complete report which may be downloaded in four parts ( Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).

Get off that mobile phone , expert tells children

January 13, 2005

The British press has given a lot of ink to the Stewart report, with many interviews with Sir William. In one of the most detailed of these he tells Nic Fleming of the Daily Telegraph that he is “more concerned“ about possible health risks today than he was five years when his panel first called for children to be discouraged from using mobile phones. Sir William tells the Telegraph that, “When it comes to suggesting that mobile phones should be available to three- to eight-year-olds, I can’t believe for a moment that can be justified. It seems to me ludicrous.” He explains: “They should not have them because children’s skulls are not fully thickened, their nervous systems are not fully developed and the radiation penetrates further into their brains.” Not everyone agrees with Stewart. The editorial writers at the Telegraph called him a “Professional Fusspot”, arguing that “all human activity carries risks, and we have quite enough to worry about these days, without getting into a flap about dangers that may or may not exist.” Even some of those who work with him at the NRPB appear to a bit uneasy. (We doubt that the NRPB has yet gotten comfortable with having an activist as its chairman.) In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, published today, Michael Clark, of the NRPB’s press office tried to moderate Sir William’s warnings. “Our chairman felt very strongly that parents ought to be aware of the risk of a risk. But we found no hard evidence of a risk,” Clark said. The Journal also quotes David Heim, the deputy editor of Consumer Reports, who also downplays possible concerns. He discounts recent studies pointing to possible hazards —for instance, the recent Karolinska report of an increased incidence of acoustic neuromas among those who had used cell phones for more than ten years. Heim’s reasoning is that ten years ago everyone was using analog phones, which have now been replaced by digital phones. “Analog phones use considerably more power than digital phones and their emission patterns are different,” he told the Journal. Heim is right, but he neglects to mention that pulsed radiation, like the signals from many digital phones, is more biologically active than the continuous wave (CW) radiation associated with analog phones. At this point, no one has any idea whether the added biological activity might compensate for the weaker signals. More importantly, Heim is disregarding a much more important issue. According to the current paradigm, even the analog signals from cell phones are incapable of causing any health effects. So, if the Karolinska study turns out to reflect a true tumor risk, all bets on which signals present a health hazard would be off. Another question which we have asked in the past (see MWN, J/F02) is why Consumers Union and its magazine, Consumer Reports, is so gung ho about discounting cell phone risks —to the point of sounding more like industry spokesmen than advocates for the public welfare. As we argued in our recent commentary on EMFs and the precautionary principle, the reason the EMF controversy does not ever move forward toward a resolution is that those who traditionally speak out on behalf of public health remain strangely silent when it comes to electromagnetic health risks. Finally, we should give credit to the Journal for covering this story. It is essentially the only newspaper in America to do so. The Financial Times had an item in the UK news, but, perhaps because it well understands the US market, it did not bother to run the news in its US edition.

As expected, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences today released its report on the possible health impacts of the US Air Force’s PAVE PAWS radar. The investigating committee found that, “There is no evidence of adverse health effects to Cape Cod residents from long-term exposure to radiofrequency energy from [the] nearby U.S. Air Force radar installation," the press release states. You can download a free summary. You can also read the report page-by-page, but you cannot download a full copy. The published report will be available for purchase later this winter from the National Academy Press.

On the lighter side, a friend asked us today why we don’t have any fun stuff on our Web site and he sent along a “radiation puzzle” from the “kids’ corner” of the National Safety Council’s Web site. So, for a change of pace, here it is.

To read more, visit www.microwavenews.com