Why Children and Teens Should Stay Away From Cell Phones
Toronto's department of public health has advised teenagers and young children to limit their use of cell phones, in order to avoid potential health risks. The advisory is the first of its kind in Canada.
Officials have warned that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under eight should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.
For many years, most government health agencies were dismissive of any risk. But with more studies, a pattern is emerging that suggests people who have used their cell phones for a long period of time are at greater risk of certain kinds of brain tumors.
Sources: Health Zone July 12, 2008 CBC News July 12, 2008
Dr. Mercola's Comments: I believe the tide is about to change folks, as the truth of any situation can rarely remain hidden forever. Sooner or later, the ramifications of our errors become self evident, just like the true dangers of smoking could not be ignored past a certain point.
Those ``in the know'' in the medical professions -- after mountains of evidence have rendered it inarguable -- are finally becoming aware that the dangers of cell phones are indeed real, and they're beginning to speak out in larger numbers.
This is often the first step to such knowledge becoming common in the general population.
The truth is, we are on the verge of a brain cancer epidemic. It could grow to 500,000 cases worldwide as soon as 2010, and there may be over a million cases in the U.S. alone by 2015.
Even if you manage to avoid brain cancer, there are risks ranging from headaches and dizziness to Alzheimer's disease to impotence.
It will take a while for this to become mainstream news, of course. First, the information has to clear the multiple hurdles put in place by the corporate propaganda machines. Just as happened for decades with cigarettes, they will try to hide the truth, using any means available. The telecommunications industry is massive, with combined revenues of more than $869 billion in 2007, and it will do its best to spread misdirection, spin, and outright lies.
Additionally, government agencies that are, in theory there to protect you, have entered into mutually profitable ``partnerships'' with the very businesses they are supposed to regulate, meaning there is very little real regulation going on.
In 2007 alone, the telecommunications industry spent almost $250 million on political lobbying. Over the past decade, they have spent a grand total of nearly $2.4 billion. Of course, that's just a drop in the bucket compared to their profits.
The Pattern is Emerging - Pay Attention!
While years ago scientists were dismissive of any risks associated with cell phone use, the accumulated amounts of studies showing health risks for long-term users now paint an entirely different picture. In addition to the Toronto Department of Health advisory, the U.K., Belgium, Germany, France and Russia have already introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.
For example, one Swedish review of 11 studies found that using your cell phone for 10 years or longer will double your risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain (acoustic neuroma). And because children have thinner skulls than adults, and their nervous systems are still developing, children are particularly vulnerable to this type of tumor and should not use cell phones at all.
Professor Mild, lead researcher of that particular study, also cautioned that the danger may be even greater than what they found because cancers need a minimum of 10 years to develop. Since children today are using cell phones at an earlier age than any previous generation, their exposure will be far greater over their lifetimes.
Health Problems Bound to Erupt Due to Radio Wave Saturation
Information-carrying radio waves have increased dramatically and exponentially over the last few years. Just think: it took 20 years for the first 1 billion cell phones to be sold -- a milestone reached in 2004. The next billion took just 18 months. The third billion was sold even faster -- just nine months, and we will reach the fourth billion by the end of this year.
Add to that all the wireless networks that are now becoming standard, exposing you to massive amounts of radio waves whether you actually use wireless or not. Most major office buildings now have WiFi, as do Starbuck's, Panera Bread, and most libraries.
The biological danger from WiFi routers, cell phones and land-based portable phones comes from two sources:
The modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave, and The carrier wave itself The modulated information-carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your vibrational cellular receptors, causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety, and ultimately cancers.
And the carrier wave has been found to create damage NOT related to thermal heat damage, which the industry has long argued is the only possible cause of biological harm (i.e. ``radio waves do not create enough thermal heat to pose a risk to biological tissue.'') Therefore, simply lowering the SAR rating on cell phones -- which determines how much radiation your body absorbs -- or making sure your phone is within legal SAR limits, has virtually nothing to do with guaranteeing your safety.
Your cells will interpret even a minute amount of cell phone radiation as a threat, and will shut down many vital processes. This is a response intended to protect them, but when you talk on a cell phone, it lasts for far longer than your body can handle.
A lot of the damage is caused by the disruption of microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells, which decreases intracellular communication. Increased deposits of heavy metals also begin to accumulate in your cells, which increases intracelluar production of free radicals, and can radically decrease cellular production of energy, thus making you incredibly fatigued.
Once your body's microtubular communication system is damaged, it is very easy to develop all sorts of pathologies related to disrupted intracellular antioxidant systems and heavy metal toxicities.
The INTERPHONE Study - the Report Everyone's Waiting For
As recently reported in Microwave News, the results from the largest cell phone study to date are being eagerly awaited by both industry and governments worldwide. The INTERPHONE Project -- a 13-country epidemiological study of tumors among users of mobile phones - is already lagging three years behind its scheduled completion date.
Part of the delay in putting together the final report now appears to be internal strife, as scientists are joining opposing camps of ``safe'' vs. ``unsafe.''
The GSM Association, a global trade organization of mobile operators, and the forum, which includes Nokia and about a dozen other manufacturers, contributed more than $3.5 million to the $15-plus million project. The European Commission also helped fund it with contributions passed through the International Union Against Cancer in an effort to create a barrier between the mobile phone industry and the scientists.
The outcome of this particular study may be more vital than most people realize, as institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission have cautioned that conclusions about possible cancer risks cannot be drawn until the INTERPHONE study is published. If the wrong conclusions are drawn from these studies, the resulting lack of public warnings could have disastrous consequences for the generations to come.
However, so far, studies confirming health risks associated with cell phone use, released by participating countries, include:
Israel - Released December 6, 2007 this study is a perfect example of misguiding double-speak. It states that they found no increased overall risk due to cellular phone use. However, that regular users, as well as heavy users in rural areas showed increased risk of parotid gland tumors, due to higher levels of exposure.
Sweden - The Swedish study found a "consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after ten years." Lead author Lennart Hardell noted that he believes a ten-year tumor latency is the "minimum" --that is, the observed risks are likely to grow larger in the years ahead. Finland -- The Finnish group reported its data as part of a joint analysis with those from four other Interphone countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the U.K.). Together they reported an elevated risk for brain tumors and acoustic neuroma among long-term cell-phone users. The BioInitiative Report
Others, in the meantime, are tired of waiting and have taken other initiatives to educate the general public. The BioInitiative Report, published August 31, 2007, was created by an international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals.
They document serious scientific concerns about the current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life, concluding that the existing standards for public safety are completely inadequate to protect your health.
Their report also includes studies showing evidence for:
Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research) Genotoxic Effects - RFR and ELF DNA Damage Stress Response (Stress Proteins) Effects on Immune Function Effects on Neurology and Behavior
Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas Childhood Cancers (Leukemia) Magnetic Field Exposure: Melatonin Production; Alzheimer's Disease; Breast Cancer Breast Cancer Promotion (Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies) Disruption by the Modulating Signal Protect Yourself from the Invisible Danger of EMR
Some individuals believe that relatively expensive fixes like nano polymers (like those used by BioPro) might help, but my initial investigation strongly suggests that this technology protection is only minimally effective, and dissipates rapidly.
Of course, the only real solution is to move our culture away from wireless back to more wired. As for myself, I completely renovated my new home prior to moving in earlier this year, and part of the project was to put in wired CAT-5 cables so I have no wireless connections at all. We have also recently moved into a brand new 25,000 square foot office building where we have no wireless anywhere in the building.
I've also learned that most portable home phones are a major source of these information carrying radio waves.
The only exception would be the much older, essentially antiquated 900 MHz portable phones. Fortunately they are still readily available online. One of the major differences is that they are only on when in use. The other higher MHz phones are on continuously, bombarding your cells with tissue damaging radiation even when you're not using them.
If you do choose to use a cell phone, use the speakerphone function whenever possible -- and keep the phone about two feet away from any body part. Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you're not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is attached. Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car's glove compartment.
For times when a speakerphone isn't practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a wireless Bluetooth.
Also, keep an eye on the signal bars on your cell phone, which tell you how strong your connecting signal is. The closer you are to a cell phone tower, the stronger your signal, and the less power your phone has to use to maintain the connection.
A strong signal is indicated by a full set of "bars" showing on your cell phone display. Fewer bars mean a weaker signal.
As in the Israeli study mentioned above, frequent use of your cell phone when you have a weak signal carries greater risk as the amount of radiation produced by your phone is higher, which increases your exposure. Talking outdoors or in open spaces can often allow for a better connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.
The exception to that rule is if you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is some distance away, in which case you're constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users and would be best advised to use a landline whenever feasible.
Related Articles:
Why Your Cell Phone Can Hurt Your Children
How Cell Phones May Cause Autism
Children Should NOT Use Cell Phones, But My Today Show Interview Does Not Support That
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
-
A lot of people have been screaming about this for as long as they've been on the market. It's about time we take a closer look, but it's very sad that damage is being done.
EMF research is not new and I don't know why scientists and journalists have ignored it so long. I remember reading about this more than 20 years ago when cows had lots of health problems in NY State with the huge power lines.
WiFi is also a huge concern to me and it's everywhere you go these days. Oy, Vey!
Mercola has some wonderful videos on his site. He gets us thinking. I think one reason the mainstream media only gives short, hushed tones - if that - to this issue is that they get huge sums of money from the marketing of cell phones.
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Yes Keebler,
That is my thought too. It is always about the money. Technology too. Very hard to give up once you are used to it.
We gave up our land lines and only have cellphones now. I even bought my 82 y.o. mother one so I could chat with her without worrying about the minutes. I'm starting to feel guilty about that.
I don't spend a great deal of time on the phone, but at work we use cordless headsets. I'm scared to hear about them.
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
- when using any phone (cordless or cellular) use a wired earbud or headset, so the transmitter is away from your body;
- radiation may be related to brain tumors, but the widespread infection of mycoplasmas and related bugs might also explain brain tumors!
Time will tell. In the meantime, MacDonald's work is revealing some pieces to the puzzle that EVERYONE ELSE has ignored.
-------------------- My biofilm film: www.whyamistillsick.com 2004 Mycoplasma Pneumonia 2006 Positive after 2 years of hell 2006-08 Marshall Protocol. Killed many bug species 2009 - Beating candida, doing better Lahey Clinic in Mass: what a racquet! Posts: 830 | From Mass. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
tickbattler
Unregistered
posted
Thanks for this article.
Can anyone tell me if a bluetooth is any better than holding the phone to your ear?
Good info and so important since the health affects of advances in technology don't seem to be discovered until after the damage is done.
Just wondering if anyone knows if EMF deflectors actually work. I've seen them for sale on the web and they just stick on your cell phone.
I don't use a cell phone because I am concerned about whether or not they are safe but some of my friends and relatives have them glued to their ears constantly and I worry about them.
Looking
Posts: 590 | From Canada | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its good that research is progressing along these lines, however I don't think anyone needs to freak out quite yet. True, verifiable and unbiased research on this topic is in the nascent stage. For the time being I don't think the /majority/ of of people need to ditch their cell phones. Just use a bluetooth earbud.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about 802.11 or any other short range wireless technology. Even assuming that these frequencies could cause damage (a big assumption), their power is much much lower than that of cell phones.
Edit: I've read some of the studies that make up this "report" previously, and the way the report is portraying them is with a big dose of "FUD" - Fear, uncertainty, doubt. I seem to remember something about there being a huge conflict of interest, where someone who had a stake in these airtube headsets was reporting on the horrors of EMFs etc. Keep your eyes open.
Posts: 691 | From East coast, USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Angelica
Unregistered
posted
I think they have known cell phones were bad news for a long time.
I saw a mainstream magazine TV show on them years ago that exposed the fact that the cell phone companies in the USA are not telling us how strong the radiation really is coming out of these things.
It would be naive to think they are safe.
IP: Logged |
sparkle7
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10397
posted
Looking - I've heard that the "deflectors" don't work. In order for anything to be effective, it would have to cause the phone not to pick up signals...
Also- I heard that if a wire with an earbud is in the "right" direction - it can actually cause the EMF to go straight into your ear.
There's an article in a UK newspaper that says that cell phone towers lead to an increase in suicide...
13 years Lyme & Co.; Small Fiber Neuropathy; Myasthenia Gravis, Adrenal Insufficiency. On chemo for 2 1/2 years as experimental treatment for MG. Posts: 4480 | From Northeastern Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
i just wonder what we can do about it at this point. i live in nyc, and at any given time in my apartment there are 15-20 wireless networks available. sometimes more than that.
power lines are everywhere. cell phones and cell phone towers are everywhere. obviously all of us spend at least a fair amount of time on computers or laptops. short of exiting society completely and moving to the middle of nowhere, what can we do to decrease our risk?
charlie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 25
posted
we live out away from the city and there are still towers around closer than a mile or two.
You can't escape this EMF emitting, and few of us could do without our internet and cell phones.
our time might be better spent figuring out how to fortify ourselves against damage from this stuff rather than trying to stop the spread of technology.
Charlie
Posts: 2804 | From Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
oxygenbabe
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5831
posted
I don't know if it works but there is a headset with airtubes of some kind that is supposed to protect you against the signal. I don't trust cellphones with constant use and so I would suggest finding that type of headset or using the speakerphone with your cellphone.
I agree about wifi--I think being bathed in it may not be good (in classrooms and on campuses), but as heiwalove pounts out,its all over in NYC and big cities.
Moreover, cordless phones are dangerous as they emit microwave signals 24/7. I use landed/wired phones and I don't use wifi in my apartment but I'm sure I'm surrounded by it and I'm not happy about that.
There have been particular warnings for children. And you shouldn't sit with your wifi laptop on your lap.
Posts: 2276 | From united states | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tracy9: But seriously, what are the chances?
I mean, I don't know anyone who has had brain cancer, and I don't know anyone who knows anyone who had brain cancer.
Tracy, cell phones have only been at peak popularity for 10 years, max, so this is more of a warning than a current analysis.
Secondly, the bigger issue is not that cell phones can cause brain tumors. Instead, the significance is in the question: if cell phones and other EMFs have the potential to create tumor cells or damage tissue, what else are they doing that we do not know about?
We have to be objective in looking at these studies and such and see the bigger picture.
Posts: 85 | From Texas | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
sparkle7
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10397
posted
CELL PHONE USE AND BRAIN TUMOR DEVELOPMENT (CNN) Sunday July 24th 2005, 10:09 am Filed under: Cell phone news
Johnnie Cochran's Doctor Suggests Cell Phone Caused Tumor
Some phones & products are worse than others. I think there's a new stronger phone that has been developed in Europe that's worse. I forget what it's called. I see them being sold here in places like Target. It's not just cell phones, it's cordless phones, too (& other devices, cell phone towers, electrical towers, etc.).
I think it's better to be aware of it rather than not know that there are dangers. We live in a "connected" world & EMF are all over. People don't want to give all of this up... We do have to know there is a danger to ask companies making this stuff for better protection.
If there is no public comment or outcry... they will just keep making this stuff & not provide any protections. It only makes more profits for the manufacturers to keep the public ignorant of potential dangers.
Posts: 7772 | From Northeast, again... | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
Where is Tailz??
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
posted
This is from 1999 so even back then 20/20 mainstream media had a clue cell phones were bad for you or they probably never would have bothered to do a report and investigation on cell phones.
What bothers me is Richard Branson who believes his best friend died from cell phone use started Virgin Mobile anyway.
Transcript of 20/20 report on cell phones Copyright 1999 ABC News October 20, 1999 Diane Sawyer, co-host:
Well, tonight we are going to be raising the new question about safety of cell phones. You'll remember, there were alarming reports a few years ago about brain cancer, but they were quickly dismissed. Well, tonight, some scientists are going to speak out and it could change the way you use your cell phone.
Charles Gibson, co-host:
The cell phone industry has always said that there are no known health effects associated with even excessive use of their product. But, now the man who ran the industry's research program, is breaking ranks and saying something very different. He's saying that the possibility of harm is very real. Listen carefully to what chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross discovered.
Brian Ross reporting:
From Los Angeles to London, few people spending more time on the phone than the flamboyant British billionaire, Richard Branson.
Richard Branson (British Billionaire): Hello, it's Richard Branson.
Ross: The man who created the Virgin Records and Virgin Air business empires. (Visual Virgin Records, Virgin Air)
The man who four times tried to go around the world in a hot-air balloon. Richard Branson has become rich and famous by taking lots of risks. But one risk he says he won't take, is with his cell phone.
Branson: Do not put the phone up to your ear, because it could fry your brain.
Ross: Branson won't put a cell phone any where near his head; using a small head set contraption instead.
Branson: There's the phone, there's the ear piece and just keep--keep the phone away from the body. You put the ear piece in the ear--either ear and you've got the little microphone here and you can talk.
Ross: It's something he's done ever since a close friend, who was a heavy user of cell phones, died of brain cancer.
Branson: (Unintelligible)
Ross: The two-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year cell phone industry maintains the scientific evidence doesn't support any such fears, but it turns out Richard Branson is not alone in his belief that cellular phones can no longer be presumed to be safe. In fact, even the man, who six years ago, was brought in by the industry to quell such fears, Dr. George Carlo (sp), is now prepared to publicly say that has been the case all along.
Dr. George Carlo (Cell Phone Investigator): You cannot guarantee that cell phones are safe. That's absolutely true, but that has always been true.
Ross: When cell phones first came out, it was widely assumed there couldn't be a risk because the power or radiation produced was so low. But now that very assumption is being called into question, by several new scientific studies, which while still preliminary are regarded by some scientists as quite troubling.
The cell phone transmits a microwave signal from the antenna to a base station or tower, often miles away. The farther away from the tower, or if the phone is inside a building or a car, the more power this phone is told by the tower to send out, to make or keep the connection. Depending on how close the cell phone antenna is, as much as sixty percent of the microwave radiation, is absorbed by and actually penetrates the area around the head. Some reaching an inch or an inch and a half into the brain.
Dr. Ross Edie (sp) (University of California Riverside): And if I hold it to my head like this, there is no way that I can avoid getting a sizable amount of that energy in my head and my hand.
Ross: Dr. Ross Edie at the University of California Riverside is widely regarded as one of, if not the most-respected scientists in the field. A man who has worked for industry and government for decades, studying microwave radiation.
Edie: This is the first generation that has put relatively high powered transmitters against the head, day after day after day.
Ross: Choosing his words carefully for this interview with 20/20, Dr. Edie says the body of research, while still far from conclusive, raises the possibility of some very serious harm from extensive exposure to cell phones.
Edie: The picture that's emerging is, that over the lifetime of the individual, you may see changes that could be considered health effects or potential health risks.
Ross: Including?
Edie: Including Leukemia and brain tumors.
Ross: Those are scary words. Brain tumors, Leukemia?
Edie: I understand and I think responsibly, one has to bring us into the forefront.
Ross: Which may come as quite a surprise to the more than eighty million Americans and some three hundred million more around the world, who use cell phones.
Unidentified Man: Just thought I'd check in for messages.
Ross: And who heard similar concerns six years ago, dismissed as unfounded scares.
Thomas Wheeler (Cell Phone Industry Trade Group President): I mean, I believe that the cellular phone is safe.
Ross: Thomas Wheeler is the president of the cell phone industry's trade group in Washington, D.C.
Wheeler: Our industry has gone out and aggressively asked the question, can we find a problem? And the answer that has come back, is that there is nothing that has come up in the research, that suggests that there is a linkage between the use of a wireless phone and health effects.
Dr. Louis Slessen (sp) (Editor, Microwave News): Nonsense. In a word simple nonsense.
Ross: Dr. Louis Slessen is the editor of Microwave News, a widely read and influential trade news letter, which tracks the cell phone business and frequently criticizes, what Slessen says is the industry's attempt to ignore or spin troublesome scientific findings.
Slessen: This is about PR, not about science. There's research from Australia, there's research from England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, all pointing in a direction Mr. Wheeler doesn't want to look. Essentially we have reports of headaches, of cancer, of changes in blood pressure, changes in sleeping patterns.
Ross: Among the most recent work, that of this Swedish doctor, Lennart Hardell, who studied phone habits of brain tumor patients. Well, Dr. Hardell found no increased risk of cancer over all, he did find that those who use the phone on the left side, had a predominance of tumors on the left side. Those who used the phone on the right side, had a predominance of tumors on the right.
Dr. Lennart Hardell (Researcher): This is an important indication, and as a matter of fact, I would be actually worried.
Ross: His pilot study was no where near big enough to be scientifically conclusive, but enough for Dr. Hardell to recommend that cell phone users take steps to minimize their exposure and be especially cautious about children using cell phones.
Slessen: There is no smoking gun. We don't know that they're unsafe, but there is tons of information from all over the world showing a problem.
Ross: But there's no sign the cell phone industry sees it that way. (Visual Cell Phone Ad)
If anything the industry's current ad campaigns encourage consumers even children to use cell phones much more than they do now. (Visual AT&T Ad)
Wheeler: I'm a big bucket guy.
Ross: Using it how much you say?
Wheeler: I mean, I buy the big bucket of minutes, which is sixteen hundred of minutes and then go beyond that.
Ross: The industry's Thomas Wheeler says there's no reason to cut back cell phone use and that the focus in studies like Dr. Hardell's, should be on the positive findings.
Wheeler: Dr. Hardell in his study, says that he could not find a link between the use of a wireless phone, epidemiologically, and--and brain cancer. What he did find, was an interesting handedness issue.
Ross: Interesting.
Wheeler: And--
Ross: He says based on his findings, he would recommend people use cell phones as little as possible. My question to you is would you agree with that advice?
Wheeler: I think that--that it is--there is a preponderance of evidence that there is not a linkage between the use of wireless phones and health effects.
Ross: This is hardly the first time, health concerns have been raised about cellular phones.
Unidentified Man #2: Can you recognize this as being the phone you used?
Suzie Raynard (sp) (Cell Phone User): Yes.
Man #2: Is this the phone?
Ross: Six weeks after this videotaped deposition in 1993, Suzie Raynard of Tampa, Florida, died of brain cancer. Her husband, David, claiming his wife's cancer was caused by her cell phone.
David Raynard (sp) (Cell Phone User): The tumor was exactly in the pattern of the antenna.
Ross: David Raynard went on almost single handedly create a national scare when he filed a lawsuit and went public with his allegations. (Clip from "Larry King Live")
David Raynard: Well, we're suing the carrier. We're suing the manufacturer.
Ross: There was great alarm on Wall Street. And even though Raynard's lawsuit was later thrown out by a judge for a lack of reliable scientific evidence, it left the cell phone industry with a huge public relations problem. And lead to the announcement of a twenty-five-million-dollar research program to be run by Dr. George Carlo, who was labeled then, by some as a kind of scientific shill for the cell phone industry.
Do you think they thought they had bought you?
Carlo: I--I hope that they didn't but I think that they probably did.
Ross: And now after six years of running the industry's research program, Dr. Carlo has come to a surprising conclusion, forcing him, he says to break ranks with the industry.
To add his voice to those increasingly concerned about the safety of cell phones.
Carlo: We've moved into an area where we now have some direct evidence of possible harm from cellular phones.
Ross: In a revealing interview with 20/20, Dr. Carlo, said he felt he had no choice but to blow the whistle on what he says has been going on behind the scenes.
Carlo: The industry had come out right after that program to say there are thousands of studies that prove wireless phones are safe. The fact was, there were no studies that were directly relevant.
Ross: Meaning no studies directly relevant to cell phone exposure, but there are now; including studies Carlo oversaw and that the industry approved and paid for.
Carlo: And this simulates exactly the type of exposure--
Ross: Clearly suggesting two potential problems according to Carlo. Genetic damage based on laboratory tests involving human blood. And an increased risk of a rare brain tumor based on a study of brain tumor patients, although no overall increased of cancer was found.
Carlo: The type of tumor is consistent with the idea that it's--it could be effected by the radiation coming from the antenna.
Ross: But if these phones were so bad, wouldn't we be seeing thousands, tens of thousands of people with brain tumors right now?
Carlo: Not necessarily. The technology has not been around that long. And cancer is a disease that has a long latency period, it usually takes ten to fifteen years for tumors to develop.
Ross: The industry says Carlo, who started his own Web site, with on-line sales of consumer manuals about cell phones, is just trying to profit from the statements. (Visual Health Risk Management Group)
And some of Dr. Carlo's scientific colleagues, including the author on the brain tumor study, disagree with Carlo's interpretation of the findings.
One of them is Dr. Martin Meltz (sp), a scientist at the University of Texas and a paid industry consultant, whom the industry said we should talk to.
Dr. Martin Meltz (University of Texas): I believe, from my perspective, that the weight of knowledge indicates safety of cell phone use.
Ross: But Carlo says the new studies, while not proving cell phones are dangerous, do contradict such assurances that cell phones are safe.
And that's something the industry knows. You showed them these same slides.
Carlo: That's correct.
Ross: The cell phone industry also sought to downplay Dr. Carlo study defection with this formal statement saying quote: "The prevailing scientific consensus is that there is no evidence of risk from the use of wireless phones, no evidence of risk."
Is that true?
Carlo: That's wrong.
Ross: That's wrong.
Carlo: That's wrong.
Ross: Have you seen this?
Carlo: It's actually quite shocking, knowing--knowing what has been conveyed to them.
Ross: Other scientists we checked with also took sharp exception to the industry's position about no evidence of risk; Dr. Henry Lions in Seattle studying genetic changes, Dr. Alan Priest in England who has studied brain function changes, as well as Dr. Hardell in Sweden studying brain tumors and Dr. Edie in California, the dean of them all.
Edie: I think that's a presumptuous statement. I think it's even irresponsible.
Ross: Even the scientist the industry told us to talk to, Dr. Meltz, reluctantly conceded that there is some evidence that needs follow up.
Meltz: There is evidence, I have to say that. Now, I--there is evidence of risk, whether it is valid evidence of risk or not, needs to be further examined.
Unidentified Man #3: Yeah, big guy how are you doing?
Ross: The industry says it plans more research but stands by it's position. Essentially dismissing the significance of what the man, who ran it's science program for the last six years, has to say.
Aren't you concerned when you hear those possible health effects?
Wheeler: I have--
Ross: Brain tumors, genetic damage.
Wheeler: I have to look at what the responsible scientists say.
Ross: They're alarmed by this.
Wheeler: And they say that there is not a public health effect.
Ross: Who are you--
Wheeler: And they say--
Ross: Who actually says that?
Wheeler: This is what the FDA has said.
Ross: Not exactly, when we checked the Web site of the Food and Drug Administration, we found a much more qualified position on cell phones. The FDA says, while the available science does not demonstrate harm from cell phones, nor does it lead to the conclusion that there is absolutely safe.
Edie: And I have to say to people, look I don't know. There are no answers to what you want to know, yet.
Ross: So no one can reasonably say that these phones are safe.
Edie: Not at all. Not at all.
Ross: The FDA now advises anyone with concerns to cut back on cell phone use or take other steps to avoid exposure.
Branson: It could be like the early days of cigarette smoking. You know, we just don't know at this stage and--and since there's quite a bit of a question mark over it, we might as well play it safe.
Sawyer: On Monday, the cell phone industry announced an agreement with the FDA to sponsor follow-up research into the study possible health effects of wireless phones. The work begun by Dr. Carlo.
But, when we come back, we have our test of some of the most popular models of cell phones. Wait until you hear the startling results.
(Commercial Break)
Gibson: Buying a cell phone requires a lot of decisions. You're likely to consider; the phone's size, how much it weighs, whether or not the mouth-piece flips out or if it's one-piece phone, and, of course, how much it costs. One thing you probably don't think about, is the amount of microwave radiation that the cell phone is sending into your brain, but our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, says maybe you should.
Gary (Cell Phone User): It's Gary, any calls.
Unidentified Woman #2: I just wanted to say hi, and see how you were doing.
Unidentified Man #4: I just wanted to check in with you and see if we're all set.
Ross: Americans love their cell phones.
Unidentified Man #5: Ten to twenty calls a day.
Unidentified Man #6: Hundreds of minutes a month.
Woman #2: I use about three hundred minutes a month.
Man #5: Fourteen hundred and one minutes last month.
Ross: But there's something about them that is not well known and certainly not advertised by the cell phone industry. (Cell Phone users)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (First Lady): Hi. This is Hillary Clinton.
Ross: Each and every model of cell phones, sold in this country, including the one here used by Hillary Clinton and the one used here by George W. Bush, has a specific measurement of how much microwave radiation from the phone can penetrate the brain.
Governor George W. Bush (Texas): I hope so, I'd like your vote.
Ross: The cell phone industry says every phone it sells is safe and meets government radiation safety limits. But tests conducted for 20/20 and being made public tonight, have found that some of the most popular cell phones can, depending on how they're held, exceed the radiation limit, in some cases, substantially exceed. (Visual AT&T cell phone)
But finding out what the radiation measurement is, for any given phone, is something no one who buys a phone could possibly know, without combing through FCC files or doing the tests 20/20 did.
When you go to the store to buy a cell phone is there any way to know how much power is coming out of that phone into the head?
David Raynard: No.
Ross: As David Raynard says he discovered, after his wife, Suzie died of brain cancer, and he set out to make himself an expert on the cell phone industry.
David Raynard: Most of the units these days actually operate like this and the problem that you have here is that the head is absorbing most of the energy that's coming out of this unit.
Ross: Since 1996, each phone manufacturer has been required to test it's phones and file the results with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, the FCC. (FCC building)
But according to Dr. Louis Slessen, the editor of Microwave News, there is no independent verification of the tests.
So, the government's not testing these phones to make sure they meet the standards.
Slessen: No. The government is asking the industry to supply them with the results.
Ross: So, it's on the honor system.
Slessen: Totally the honor system.
Ross: Can they be trusted?
Slessen: I think you should find out.
Ross: But when we decided to do our own tests, we found out that it wasn't so easy. We wanted to test these five phones; two Motorolas, two Nokias and one Ericsson. But none of four American testing labs we contacted, that do such work, would agree to do it for 20/20.
Slessen: Their bread and butter is not ABC News. It's the industry. They go do this for you, they'll be black listed.
Ross: Which is why we ended up in Europe, outside Duzeldorph (sp), Germany, at the Institute for Mobile and Satellite Technology. A research laboratory which does work for both industry and government in Germany. (Visual of Institute For Mobile and Satellite Technology)
And was on a list supplied by the American FCC.
Dr. Akeem Bar (Institute for Mobile and Satellite Technology): For ABC News, we tested five phones...
Ross: Dr. Akeem Bar ran the tests for 20/20.
Bar: ...with antenna in and antenna out and we have measured three frequencies according to the FCC guidelines.
Ross: Following one industry standard method, each phone is placed underneath a phantom head filled with a fluid that simulates brain tissue. This device then measures the amount of radiation or energy that penetrates from the cell phone underneath into the fluid to give what is known as the SAR, the specific absorption rate. Anything above a measurement of 1.6 watts per kilogram, is supposed to be prohibited.
All the phones we tested were in the analog as opposed to the digital mode and depending on how the phone was placed, four out of the five phones 20/20 tested, exceeded the FCC safety standard in at least one position, starting with the Motorola Microtac Lite XL. The phone members of our staff have used for years. (Visual Motorola Phone)
In what is known as the standard touch position, the phone was under the limit, antenna in and out, reaching no higher than 1.52. But we also tested the phone in a second commonly used position, and in that position, the MicroTac Lite XL was over the limit with the antenna extended at 1.83 and with the antenna retracted, substantially over the limit at 3.15.
Carlo: That number is a surprise.
Ross: Dr. George Carlo ran the cell phone industry's research program for the last six years.
Carlo: Now that would be in a position like this, which is ninety--ninety degrees straight up and down. That is almost twice the standard.
Ross: The phones are supposed to be tested in what is called a normal operating position, but the FCC rules are remarkably vague about what that constitutes, saying there are several normal positions that can be tested.
Carlo: Because of the vagueness of the FCC requirements, just about any phone can be approved. The testing that you have done, may be uncovering the tip of the iceberg.
Ross: Can Motorola argue that the way the phone was tested was irregular?
Carlo: Well, from a practical point of view, when someone uses a phone they move it around. People move the phone, they talk, some people hold it on their shoulder, so, it makes sense to consider all the positions.
Ross: In several long letters, Motorola claims that 20/20's own tests prove that MicroTac Lite to be fully compliant with FCC guidelines because the phone came in under the FCC standard on the so-called touch position, a position outlined by the FCC guidelines. That, of course, was not the case in the second position our testers used.
Carlo: It is possible for the industry to submit the findings that are favorable to them. And have the FCC only review those. In effect, this industry is regulating itself.
Ross: Also over the limit in both positions and at every frequency we tested, was one of the top-selling phones in the country, the Nokia 6160, when used in it's analog mode at a range from 1.84 to 2.16. An older Nokia Model, the 636 made for Radio Shack, also exceeded the limit in three of the four tests we conducted ranging from 1.54 to 2.12.
In letters to 20/20, Nokia said all its phones meet or exceed all applicable safety standards and said our tests did not conform the standard industry practice. It turns out, Nokia tests its phones with a thicker, rubber pad simulating an ear, thicker than the one we used. Both standard with the testing equipment.
Again, something permitted under the FCC's vague testing procedures.
Carlo: Your tests are good. The results of your tests are not good for the industry.
Ross: The fifth phone we tested, this Ericsson cell phone, the AG 618, ranged from 1.34 in one position to just above the limit at 1.65 in the second position.
Ericsson noticed that its own tests showed the phone, no longer in production, but still for sale, no higher than 1.54 under the legal limit. Given the margin of error in testing, about the same as our results.
Acceptable or unacceptable?
Carlo: Too close for comfort. (Visual of 6000 Series)
Ross: The phone that did best in our tests was the Motorola Star Tac, designed with an antenna that juts sharply away from the head. No higher than .43 in our testing, well under the limit.
That's the phone David Raynard has decided to buy.
David Raynard: When the antenna is at this angle, and behind the radio, you're getting less energy forced into your head.
Ross: But Raynard says he believes Motorola won't admit that the newly-designed phone could be safer than older models for fear of future lawsuits.
David Raynard: I think they would love to say that this unit is safer than other units.
Ross: They don't advertise it that way.
David Raynard: No, they don't, because then they're actually admitting that there's a medical or biological problem
Ross: Again, the cell phone industry maintains every phone sold in this county meets federal safety standards, and that there is a huge margin of safety built in the standard. The industry also says that none of the radiation coming from cell phones has been proven to have a health effect.
Wheeler: There clearly, clearly, clearly is a signal which comes from the cell phone.
Ross: Can that be a good thing though, to have that kind of radiation, that power, going into the brain?
Wheeler: The--there isn't data to show that what is happening has a health affect.
Ross: Even so, a number of phone companies are now marketing ear-piece sets, which keep the transmitter far away from the head. The industry says it's strictly for convenience and nothing to do with safety.
Unidentified Man #6: Very nice.
Ross: But when we tested the Nokia 6160 with an ear piece, the same phone that exceeded the safety standard in every position of our tests, easily passed with the ear piece device, producing the lowest figure of the entire range of tests we conducted as low as .02.
Slessen: You're taking the source of radiation away from your head. You're taking it away from your brain, away from your eyes. Those are so important considerations.
Unidentified Man #7: Call me on the cell if you need me.
Unidentified Woman #6: Give them my best.
Unidentified Man #8: Talk to you later. Bye.
Sawyer: Well, there's been a lot of reaction in Washington to our report. The Federal Communications Commission told us that our test results warrant close scrutiny. And just yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration issued a consumer update on mobile phones saying that while available science does not demonstrate that mobile phones are harmful, it urges the industry to design cell phones in a way that minimumizes radiation exposure to users.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic