An Editorial

Cell Phones: Millennium Cigarettes?

• Cell Phones Said To Weaken Bones • Analysis Finds Evidence of Cell Phone-Tumor Link • Senate Studies Cell Phone Cancer Risks • Cancer Center Workers Warned about Cell Phone Risks • New Mexico Allergy Sufferers Want Public Wi-Fi Ban • Study Cautions Pregnant Women On Cell Phone Use • Researcher: Cell Phones 'More Dangerous Than Smoking' • Cell Phones May Provide False Sense Of Security • Study Suggests Cell Phone-Salivary Gland Cancer Link • Scientist Worries WiFi May Harm Children • British Study To Examine Cell Phone-Health Links • Study: Cell Phone Use Not Linked to Cancer Risk • FDA Will Review Cell Phone-Cancer Link • Supreme Court Clears Cell Phone Cancer Suits for Trial • St. Louis Researchers Find Cell Phone Radiation Doesn't Promote Cancer • Swedish Study Finds No Cell Phone-Cancer Link in First Decade of Use • WHO Study Examines Cellphone Risks to Kids • Judges OKs Cell Phone Safety Case • Cell Phones May Harm Sperm Cells, British Study Finds • Swedish Study Finds Cell Phone-Brain Tumor Link • Firefly Promotes Cell Phone for Kids • Researchers: Cell Phones Pose Cancer Risk for Kids • British Lab Will Study Cell Phone Radiation • Swedish Study Finds Higher Risk in Long-Term Users • Cell Phones Probably Safe: British Study • Court Blocks Cell Phone "Ray Blockers" • Cell Phone Radiation Suit Dismissed • Baltimore attorney Peter Angelos enters cell suit • New Orleans judge lets cell-phone suit stand • Report Finds "Legitimate Questions" About Cell Phone Safety • Doctor Blames Cell Phones for His Brain Tumor • Cell Phone Cancer Link • Readers Report Their Problems • Cell Phone Safety: An Editorial

June 29, 2000

"Reach for a Camel instead of a sweet," urged the magazine and billboard ads of a few decades ago. In the mid-20th Century, doctors routinely advised patients to take up smoking to aid in weight control. The notion that inhaling tobacco smoke could be harmful was regarded as alarmist, unfounded, almost superstitious.

After all, the big tobacco companies were good corporate citizens who wouldn't sell anything if they knew it was harmful -- and the government surely wouldn't permit the sale of tobacco unless it was known to be safe, right?

A few generations later, lung cancer, emphysema and smoking-related heart disease are among the top causes of death and disability and smoking is universally recognized as deadly. Our earlier refusal to admit this is today seen as lunacy.

Meanwhile, Motorola, Nokia, AT&T, Sprint and other good corporate citizens are selling hundreds of thousands of cell phones -- highly compact ultra-high-frequency transceivers with antennas that just happen to be situated directly above the ear when the device is in use.

These good corporate citizens wouldn't do this unless they were sure the devices were safe, would they? And surely there are government agencies that regulate these devices to be sure they're safe, right?

Wrong. The safety of cell phones has not been demonstrated and, in fact, two industry-sponsored studies have raised early but disturbing evidence tying the devices to brain cancer. The Federal Communications Commission regulates cell phone emissions but only from the standpoint of preventing interference to other users.

Since the effects of exposure to carcinogens are generally cumulative over time, there is often a lag of two or more decades between the initial widespread use of a substance or device and the resulting morbidity and mortality.

In other words, we may today be "poisoning" a new generation of cancer victims -- young people now in their 20s and 30s who routinely spend several hours a day with a cell phone pressed against their head, emitting radio frequency energy into their brains at close range.

It may be 2020 or so before the epidemic emerges. And, of course, it may not happen at all.

But consider this: No other radio-frequency-emitting device has ever been used in this manner. Most transmitters are physically separated from their antennas, which is where the RF energy is emitted. Older "walkie-talkies" were larger and were held in front of the face, with the antenna often rising above the head, thus minimizing "cooking" of brain cells.

Can You Protect Yourself?
Some manufacturers are trying to cash in by selling "filters" that fit onto a cell phone and supposedly reduce emissions. This is not likely to be an effective remedy, since reducing emissions would also reduce usability of the devices. After all, "leakage" is not the problem. RF radiation is not being "leaked" from cables linking the transmitter to the antenna; it's coming right off the antenna, just as it's supposed to.

We are aware of no scientific evidence that demonstrates these devices do anything at all. At the least, they are a waste of a few dollars. At the worst, they may create a false sense of confidence in heavy cell phone users.
There's a very simple solution, an easy way to reduce what may eventually be recognized as a substantial health risk: a headpiece that allows you to place the cell phone (and, thus, its antenna) several feet away. These devices are simple and inexpensive. They work with nearly every popular model. You can buy them at Radio Shack or any similar store for about $20.

No one yet knows how great the risk is. It may be very slight but then again it may not be. The headpiece is a prudent and modest safeguard that also makes life simpler by freeing both hands for taking notes, doodling or putting lot-fat cream cheese on your morning bagel.

--
JRH

Back to the top |