Researchers seek funds to study cell phone safety

Are cell phones safe? For years, studies have provided conflicting conclusions. Today, there is still no clear answer. But experts agree on one thing: more research is needed to find out the answer.

In an effort to raise awareness among consumers and to urge government leaders to allocate more funding for research, an international group of researchers is gathering in Washington, D.C. later this month to present study findings and to lobby government officials.

The issue has already gained the attention of at least one important congressional leader. On September 14, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and the former ranking minority leader for the Senate's Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, will chair a hearing questioning scientists involved in the latest research. Researchers are hopeful that Specter, who was instrumental in increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health from $12 billion to nearly $30 billion and has long championed funding for cancer research, will introduce legislation that specifically asks for more funding for research in this area. But so far Specter hasn't indicated one way or another if he will try to get money allocated specifically for cell phone health-related research.

"There is cause for concern," said Dr. Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, who has been studying the effects of cell phone radiation on humans since 1980. "But to prove that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems will take more work. At this point the biological research suggests that long term use can have some adverse health effects, with brain cancer being one of those effects."

The conference, which runs September 13 to 15, is being sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, National Research Center for Women & Families, The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, The Flow Fund Circle, and the Environmental Health Trust.

Researchers from around the globe are expected to attend the event, including leading scientists from Western and Northern Europe, where cell phones have been used for much longer than they have in the U.S. Some of these researchers, including Devra Davis, professor of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh and the primary organizer of the conference, are likely to testify at the Senate hearing.

Longtime debate
For years, researchers and scientists have debated whether radiation from radio frequencies used to wirelessly transmit phone calls could adversely affect the health of cell phone users. And as more people throughout the world use cell phones and make these devices an integral part of their lives, concerns have grown as to long-term public health issues.

In the U.S. alone, more than 270 million Americans or more than 87 percent of the U.S. population, now owns a cell phone, according to 2008 data compiled by the CTIA, the wireless industry's trade association.

Experts say the concern over cell phone use stems from a form of radiation that's produced when these wireless devices communicate with cell towers using radio frequency. High-frequency radiation, such as the kind that's used in X-rays, is known to cause cancer in high doses.

Cell phones emit much lower frequency radiation, but it's unknown whether these milder forms of RF can cause adverse biological changes to humans. But the fact that cell phones are often held close to the body either right alongside the head or in a pocket, has caused some concern among researchers who believe that radio frequency energy is being absorbed into the body and can cause damage to cells or even alter cell phone users' DNA. Even holding a phone 10 millimeters away from your head could decrease the exposure of RF radiation to the body by about 100 times, Davis said.

So far the research seems to be split in terms of the risk of this radiation exposure. An ongoing multinational initiative known as Interphone, has yielded mixed results so far. Meanwhile, some studies have found no correlation at all between cellphone use and brain tumors.

But a handful of studies that have looked at the long-term effects of using cell phones suggest that people who use a cell phone for at least an hour each day over a 10-year period are at an increased risk of developing brain tumors. This research also suggests that these tumors are more likely to be on the side of the head where the phone is most often used.

More recently, researchers have grown particularly concerned about the adverse effects that cell phone usage could have on children. Some Swedish research indicates that children are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, but other research efforts have found results inconclusive.

The kid factor
One reason for concern is the fact that children who start using cell phones at a young age will inevitably be exposed for a longer period of time over their entire lifetime to cell phone radiation. But researchers are also concerned about the risk of cell phones with children, because children's nervous systems are not fully developed. Also their brains contain more fluid than brains of adults, which allows for deeper penetration of radiation. And finally, children's skulls are not as thick as those of adults.

"The reality is that the head of a child is different in terms of density of the bone and the amount of fluid in the brain than that of an adult," Davis said. "And we know that the more fluid there is an object, the more deeply the radio signal can penetrate."

Because cell phones have only really been used widely since about the 1990s, research on long-term health effects is limited. But research on the effects on children is even more scarce.

Still, there has been enough concern among public health officials in various parts of the world to warrant warnings.

For example, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), a government regulatory body located in the home country of Nokia, the largest cell phone maker in the world, is urging parents to restrict cell phone use for children, suggesting parents encourage kids to text rather than talk.

"Although research to date, has not demonstrated health effects from mobile phone's radiation, precaution is recommended for children as all of the effects are not known," the agency's Web site reads.

France has even proposed banning advertisements encouraging children younger than 12 to use cell phones. And it has also warned parents that children under six are particularly at risk. Legislation in France would also make it illegal to sell a mobile phone without earphones, and the government is looking into limiting the amount of radiation that a phone is allowed to emit.

FDA's stance
The Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. does not go as far as issuing a warning. But the agency recommends minimizing any potential risk by using hands-free devices and keeping cell-phone talk to a minimum.

The Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. also requires manufacturers to report the relative amount of RF absorbed into the head by any given cell phone. This number is known as the SAR, or specific absorption rate, and the agency publishes those figures for consumers to review. CNET has used this information to publish its cell phone radiation level chart.

But researchers such as Davis say more needs to be done.

"The big question to me is why has Finland, the land of Nokia, issued a warning?" she said. "Why has France issued the same warning? And why has Israel, which doesn't even have a Clean Air Act, issued a warning on a government Website about children using cell phones? And in the U.S. we have no such warnings."

The wireless industry itself has resisted warnings or restrictions for its products. And it often points to research indicating that there is no link between cancer or other harmful health effects and cell phone use.

"The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," the CTIA said in a statement. "In addition, there is no known mechanism for microwave energy within the limits established by the FCC to cause any adverse health effects. That is why the leading global heath organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration all have concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk."

No government funding
While they have stopped short of issuing warnings, U.S. government agencies along with other governmental agencies such as the European Union, have said that more studies are needed to determine whether there are any health risks associated with cell phone usage.

But the big problem in the U.S. is that there is no government funding available for such research.

"There has been zero money available for research on the effects of cell phone radiation for about the last 10 years," Lai said. "So there has really been no independent research done in the U.S. for at least a decade. Research is being done in Europe or the Far East, such as in China or Japan or in Israel. Even Canada has made some money available for research."

Because there has been no money available in the U.S., Lai, who was a pioneer in studying the biological effects of cell phone radiation on humans, has turned his research attention toward studying medical applications for electro magnetic fields.

"Fifteen years ago, we were at the cutting edge of this research," he said. "But now in the U.S., we are not involved in the study of the epidemiology of cell phone use at all. We are like a Third World country."

This is likely what Sen. Specter, who is a cancer survivor himself and a champion for medical research funding, will try to rectify through the Senate hearings that will take place on Capitol Hill later this month.

Researchers, such as Davis and Lai, say their goal is not to demonize the cell phone industry or even suggest that the government ban the use of cell phones. But they believe that the public needs to be aware of the risks associated with using these devices and that more research is needed to identify these risks and to come up with ways to make them safer.

And while these researchers can't say definitively that cell phones pose a public health issue today, they fear that without careful study and modification, these devices could cause an epidemic of cancer and other health problems in the future, since it can take decades for cancer and other maladies to manifest.

"Cell phones are very useful," Lai said. "So I'm not saying we should throw them away. But we need to face the reality that there could be some adverse effects that come up in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. And we need to find ways to prevent or modify phones to make these devices less harmful. But to do that, we first need to understand how radiation affects us. And we need the money to conduct this research."

[mjd420nova]

I think this should have been done long ago, before the products hit the market for public use. I find it hard to believe that putting a microwave emitting source that close to your brain can be good for you. Their may not be any immediate evidence of damage, but over time and twenty years down the line, we have no documantation on that long term exposure.

[ralfthedog]

1. The energy generated by a digital cell phone is trivial. You are exposed to far more intense sources every day.<br /><br />2. Microwaves don't cause genetic damage. It is non ionizing radiation. They don't even cause an increase in temperature unless they are tuned to an absorption band of the things you are beaming them into. Even if they were tuned to heat water (They are not), the energy levels are so low you could not detect any difference. <br /><br />You are more likely to get cancer by singing show tunes.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Those are nice facts you provide, got any sources? <br /> <br />I work on microwaves and see their effects. I also see what can happen if a microwave leaks (one of the things I have to test for). <br /> <br />If European scientists are recommending keeping a cell phone at least 10mm away from the body to reduce exposure by about 100 times indicates there is a lot of energy there. The definition of "a lot" is relative of course, it may be a lot for children, or it may be a lot for adults. As mentioned several times in the article more research is needed. To make the statements you made would require that you are an expert in the effects of radiation on biology. <br /> <br />One thing I can say for sure from my own experience. The new smart phone I bought sure makes the side of my head hot, and it appears to be hotter than I can account for by the temperature of the side of the phone contacting my head. After talking to someone for 15 minutes to 1/2 hour, my ear is so hot and sore I will pull out the bluetooth headset and use it. Sometimes my ear is still sore the next day. I find it hard to believe all this soreness and feeling the side of my head to be hot can be caused by a warm cellphone (it's not even hot). <br /> <br />Some research even suggests the radiation from high voltage power lines can be harmful to people living near it. The problem is there is conflicting research, and that often it will be biased toward the point of view of whomever is paying for it. This makes it near impossible to get a definitive answer on subjects such as this one. As a technician working in electronics for almost 30 years, I was used to warnings from television companies not to keep your head too close to the deflection and high voltage circuits in a TV for too long. These companies just used their common sense which would tell us that radiation is never 100% harmless. <br /> <br />The smartest thing to do here would be to err on the side of caution and make sure your children are using headsets or hands free devices. I would recommend the same for adults. After all, no one wants to get cancer in 20 or 30 years and either not be sure what caused it, or be able to say "see, told ya so" when it's too late to do anything about it.

[Michichael]

Mergatroid, if moving an item 10mm reduces it's effects by 100 times, then that means it reduces in power 10 times per mm through air. Moving through flesh or other solids would logically reduce the effect even further, but just for the sake of argument, let me demonstrate how those big numbers shouldn't worry you. <br /><br />If I reduce the temperature from 1 degree to .01 degree, I've reduced the temperature to 100 times lower than what it was. But I only reduced it by less than a degree. <br /><br />Context is very useful, give us some actual figures not "omg 100 times less energy!"<br /><br />The distance to the human brain is at least an inch. That's ~25 mm. So by the time the "radiation" the phone is giving off reaches your brain, if you were made of air, it'd be 250 times less powerful than it was at transmission! (All assuming a linear degenerative curve of course.) <br /><br />Now since this is actually flesh, not air, it's probably reduced completely by the first few layers of skin. <br /><br />Sure if we were dealing with 80 watt cell transmitters I'd be worried. But the average cell phone antenna transmitts at what, 1/2 watt? I believe the legal limit is 3 watts according to the FCC. So even if your cell phone was cranked up transmitting at 3 watts, by the time it hits your brain, it's at LEAST reduced to .03 watts. Since this is flesh we're talking about it's probably not even measurable. <br /><br />3 to .03 is 100 times lower. Big numbers! Zomg! And that's only if your phone is transmitting at the legal limit. Most do not. So you're probably looking at .5 watts of energy being thrown at your brain if the phone was inside of it. By the time the energy travels 25 mm through flesh... You get more radiation from the monitor you're reading this comment on. <br /><br />So can I get billions in funding for my "research" now?

[dwreid]

I have to agree wtih mjd420nova here. <br /> <br />Seriously. This subject has been researched endlessly and the primary reason for continuing to research it apears to be the desire for hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding because the people who want to do the research didn't get the results they wanted in previous studies. Having already made up their minds what the answer should be they now want enough funding to achieve the results they have decided are the correct ones. As will all money grab research projects of this type, when there is insufficient evidence to continue the work they trot out the "but think of the children" argument to stir up enough FUD to pry a few million dollars free from the government. It's also interesting to note that the frequently suggested solution to the problem is to use a hands free headset which usually contains a radio transmitter that is not only next to your head but actually stuck in your ear. It's get a clue time.

[jaguar717]

The 10mm / "100 times" is based on "normal" distance being 1mm. Energy drops off as the square of distance, so 10x the distance is 1/100th of the (irrelevant) level of energy.<br /><br />This article should've simply been titled "Researchers Seek Funding".<br />Or, "Researchers Want Politicians to Pay Them With Other People's Money to Confirm Impending Crisis Which Needs Yet More Funding".<br /><br />The most basic understanding of physics will tell you cell phone "radiation" is a joke. You get more from a lightbulb, or the sun. Mergatroid, your ear gets hot because you're holding your phone physically against it. Hold your ipod against your ear for an hour and it'll get hot too...

[Michichael]

Jaguar - exactly. That's why I noted that I assumed linear degeneration - for simplicity of the common reader really. I don't know the actual degenerative coefficient for cell transmissions, but the figure works nicely. :)

[tektaktyks]

im suing at&#38;t...dibs?

[EarthToApple]

You are Americas number one problem when it comes to business, people like you sue for any reason; with no grounds

[tektaktyks]

umm,no,people like me are not americas biggest problem,the corporations like at&#38;t is in the top 5 biggest americas problems.

[rich12313]

@tektaktyks <br /><br />do i smell a class action lawsuit? if so, im in

[jerrymacGP]

Although I have never seen any credible research that demonstrates any link between cell usage and any adverse health effects, I feel this research is still important. Good quality research will go a long away to dispel the fears of many (not all) ordinary people about the risks (or lack thereof) of using a cell phone. There will still be a few naysayers (the same people who rail against immunization, probably), but the majority should be able to rest easy.

[gwailo247]

We don't really want to know, do we?

[gandolph_phys]

I'm a physicist and I just wrote a blog about cell phone and microwave oven radiation. Please check it out (and decide for yourself)<br /><br />http://www.peterdolph.com/2009/08/will-microwave-radiation-give-you_19.html

[donsms]

No thnx!

[gadget_gadget]

somebody correct that graphics - the iPhone is upside down!

[Eddie-c]

Even IF this were proved true, how many people would really stop using their cell or jesus-phone? People know that texting/yakking on one etc is dangerous to both themselves and other people yet don't give a sh$% so this would make everyone stop? Heck, even Ina posted an article a while back about 'withdrawal symptoms' of being without her device.

[pubmat]

Here's what you can do to minimize exposure folks: First, Get a radiation free headset. A company makes one that uses a hollow tube to conduct sound waves to your ear, rather than direct phone-to-head exposure. Also, get something called a ferrite bead and put it around the wire of the headset. (any headset actually, doesnt have to be a rad-free one.) Ferrite beads dramatically reduce any electromagnetic radiation that might otherwise travel to your head. Its important to get a proper one thats tuned the frequencies you want to attenuate, but there are companies that make them for this purpose. They've been in use in computers for years, and they WORK. Other than that, find a cell phone with the LEAST amount of radiation, measured in SAR level, on the market. CNET publishes such a list, check it out. And keep it the heck away from your head at all costs.<br /><br />I'm not a scientist by the way, so don't come at me with techno-babble. I realize that these specific remedies have not been scientifically tested, but in theory they flat out work. The main thing is to keep the phone as far away from your body when using as possible while diffusing the damaging frequencies, and these devices allow you to do just that. Good luck.

[Bill_I]

The risk from cell-phone and texting usage is not from radiation, but distraction. --- All of this babble about RF caused brain damage from cell phones is complete rubbish invented by arm-waving consultants only want one thing, money for their alleged advice. --- Yes, microwave radiation can be dangerous, but you would have to stare into a microwave oven for minutes on end to have any measurable risk.

[gillet02]

There have already been a number of clear studies demonstrating that the low levels of electromagnetic energy that come from cell phones are harmless. <br />In the 80's there was a report of higher levels of breast cancer in woman on Long Island NY.<br />Cold Spring Harbor was given a huge grant to study this and quickly found out that the reason was that there were more high risk women living in the region. Regardless the "public interest" groups refused to accept this finding and screamed for more studies (CSH took the money and did more studies).<br />Very few biological scientists believe there is a link between cell phone or electrical high tension wire exposure and cancer. But I am sure that if you give out money many will study it.<br />Now for the "hot head" I have a simple explanation, you are blocking air flow to your scalp with a device that is "warm", put a warm rock against your head and you will likely get the same result.<br />Try using your ear buds when they are turned off, you will likely still feel discomfort.

[DigitalFrog]

Here's the kicker as far as I'm concerned. Brain cancer should be the less likely effect, if in fact there is an issue. Most peoples phones spend far more time on there belt or in their pocket than at the side of their head, so if there is a problem, I would expect to see problems in the hip region before the skull.

[nwzomer]

This is an awesome Idea... Maybe funded by bill gates not the government, aren't we really tight (budgetwise) anyways?? They should do some more research though.... The results would be interesting...

[galeso]

Of course they fry your brain, just look at anyone who is using one. They instantly forget how to drive - there is all the proof you need.

[Brain101]

The need to increase research funding means an increase in taxes. How this would be aligned with Obama?s Healthcare Reform? These researches had been completed by many scientists from all over the world. All you need is to spend only a million dollar or less to collect the results of these researches and you are done. Unless, someone at NIH wants to improve his or her lifestyle!<br />Anyway, I hope the congressmen and women would explore these two websites before approving a single penny: http://brain101.info/EMF.php and http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/

[WBru]

Good article. Yes we need good, unbiased research on this; yes there is research going back decades, but a lot of it found disturbing effects (microwave hearing, EEG changes, brain damage). Here's an article I liked even more on this topic:<br /><br />http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/08/31/top_stories/doc4a9aa14099aa7897239842.txt

[donsms]

How many more studies need to be done?,don`t ya think enough have already been published and actually does anyone think that we`re going to give up cell phones if any danger is eventually found?. I doubt it!

[donsms]

Please stop with these nutty articles about possible dangers,isn`t there anything else you could be writing about that has more relevence? Dangers are everywhere in this world,why must we continue to isolate ourselves from any possible harm.We are human beings who have faced many dangers and have made it this far,doesn`t that account for anything?

[TogetherinParis]

Take those funds these 'researchers' are seeking and spend that money on elementary school science education instead. Maybe we wouldn't have so much trash sciencology being proposed so seriously. This stinks.

[geographics]

There is one glaring error in this article: "...experts agree on one thing: more research is needed to find out the answer." <br />The PUBLIC stance of the wireless industry is to say "more research is needed"---which for them is code for: "Let's keep the "uncertainty" factor going as long as we can. Get people dependent on it, spread the technology as extensively as possible, keep the sales going." Not unlike the strategy adopted by the tobacco industry for many years. <br /><br />But if you attend the meetings where they are mostly "among friends"---like the IEEE SC-4 sub-committee that develops the standards that are a primary influence on our FCC exposure guidelines, and its mothership committee, the conveniently self-dubbed "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety," both headed by and heavily infused with "experts" from the wireless industry and certain military labs---you will hear something very, very different. THEY all agree that this research needs to be stopped. They laugh at the researchers who find bioeffects, and do their best to discredit them and get their research unfunded. If you want to know why research on cell phone health in the US stopped ten years ago, thank the industry and people like these.<br /><br />The unfortunate thing is that many of the expert groups you want to look up to are badly tainted with economic interests or fear of the power of economic interests.<br /><br />As for the comments about tiny power levels---here's the deal. Yes, intensity is an important factor coming out of the research, but it is not always the critical factor. You can take a very tiny pill that alters your entire biology, or take a very large pill that has little effect. It all depends on the nature of the "information" that pill is carrying to your cells. So it is with wireless radiation. It's not always the intensity impact that matters, but the information that radiation is giving to the cells, and based on hundreds of studies, it is apparent that even very low intensity radiation is being "read" by cells and causing them to alter their normal functioning. That is a fact that even industry scientists know. They just say they don't think it's a problem. Another analogy is that of a bullet as compared to a club. The club is clearly bigger and more powerful, but the bullet, travelling at the right speed, and precisely aimed at the heart can do more damage. Radiation exposure to an entire organism may be slight, but if it impacts some critical structure, and does so repeatedly, the effect may be significant.