Search:

about sehn

links

T h e N e t w o r k e r

Are Cell Phones Safe? - October/ November 2009

Are you current with the latest precaution news? In addition to The Networker, the Science &Environmental Health Network also publishes

Rachel's Precaution Reporter

, a compilation of news from around the world relating to the precautionary principle and its uses. To subscribe,

click here

I.Editor's Note--A Classic Case for Precaution

Nancy Myers

II.Why I Am Concerned about Cell Phones

Joseph H. Guth

I. A Classic Case for Precaution

TOPNancy Myers

This issue of the Networker features an exclusive article by Devra Davis, the scientist who hasbeen instrumental in ramping up public attention to health risks associated with cell phones.Reports of the September conference and Senate hearings Davis organized tell the story: “CellPhones: Precautions Recommended,” was the Science News headline. “We just don’t know if cellphone use causes cancer and other medical problems, and until we find out with more certainty webetter apply what is called the precautionary principle,” wrote Herb Denenberg, a Philadelphiacolumnist.See

SEHN’s October Precaution Reporter

for these and other reports that mention theprecautionary principle. The hearings and conference generated a lot of additional coverage thatdidn’t name the principle but endorsed the idea. CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who has been followingthe issue for a year and a half, said he always wears an earpiece when talking on his cell phone. Aworldwide series of meetings is underway, from Brazil to Norway. France issued yet another official warning. The European Union is considering doing the same.After listening to cancer and radiofrequency experts as well as industry scientists, Sen. ArlenSpecter said, “Precautions are not a bad idea. They may not be a good idea but they are not abad idea.” (1)Specter’s statement about precaution was ultra-cautious. The precautionary principle itself is oftenportrayed as the absurd extreme of caution by those who oppose it: if we had used theprecautionary principle humans wouldn’t have invented fire, automobiles, or, of course, cellphones.But the message of the hearings and conference was different. It showed how the precautionaryprinciple works, and that experts and political leaders are learning to apply it—a skill more familiar to sensible parents.The precautionary principle addresses a specific situation that occurs frequently in modern life:“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionarymeasures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully establishedscientifically.”All statements of the principle have this combination: harm, uncertainty, and action. The principle isa go-ahead to take protective action of some kind when there is cause for concern.For several years, scientists have been raising red flags about possible links between cell phonesand aggressive brain cancers known as gliomas (the cancer that was fatal to Sen. Ted Kennedy)and other medical problems. Davis describes bringing these concerns to her boss at the time, Dr.Ronald Herberman, head of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Herberman issued amemo in 2008 to his faculty colleagues urging them to take precautionary measures in how they,and especially their children, used cell phones. Because of Herberman’s stature, the US scientificand political establishment finally began to take notice.

Science & Environmental Health Network - Are Cell Phones Safe? - Oc...http://www.sehn.org/Volume_14-5.html#top1 von 56.11.2009 08:32

In September 2008 Rep. Dennis Kucinich conducted the House equivalent to this year’s Senatehearings. Herberman’s testimony at the House hearings described the classic case for precaution:“The link between cell phones and health effects is suggestive but not solidly established. Frommy careful review of the evidence, I cannot tell you conclusively that phones cause cancer or other diseases. But, I can tell you that there are published peer reviewed studies that have led me tosuspect that long term cell phone use may cause cancer. It should be noted in this regard thatworldwide, there are three billion regular cell phone users, including a rapidly growing number of children. If we wait until the human evidence is irrefutable and then act, an extraordinarily largenumber of people will have been exposed to a technology that has never really been shown to besafe. In my opinion, for public health, when there is some evidence of harm and the exposed groupis very large, it makes sense to urge caution.” (2)Herberman said he recommended to his colleagues “a set of prudent and simple precautions that Ifelt could reduce potential risk, while awaiting more definitive evidence”:• Restrict children’s and young people’s use of cell phones to emergencies and texting.• Adults should use headsets and speaker mode, limit calls, and avoid using the phone when thesignal is weak.• Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible. SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body. (The Environmental Working Grouprecently issued

SAR ratings

for leading brands.)Parents know how to do this, though it won’t be easy. But this is not only about individualresponsibility. Davis, Herberman, and others call for more and better independent research,supported by government and with full cooperation from the industry; public warnings and labels;and pressuring manufacturers to make safer devices.Notice that no one, at this point, is calling for an outright ban on cell phones. Dr. Herberman sayshe still uses his—with a headset.That is the precautionary principle at work.(1) Daniel Malloy, “Cell phone warnings by the earful.” Pittsburg Post-Gazette. September 15,2009.

http://postgazette.com

(2) Ronald B. Herberman, MD, “Tumors and Cell Phone use: What the Science Says.” Statementto the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Washington,September 25, 2008.

http://environmentalhealthtrust.org/node/234

II. Why I Am Concerned about Cell Phones

TOPDevra L. Davis, PhD MPH

In 2003 I was stunned to learn that a prestigious commission of the conservative Britishgovernment had issued warnings three years earlier about children and cell phones. While I like tothink of myself as an open-minded scientist, I thought the idea that cell phones could cause anyharm was a bit daft, right up there with the notion that invisible radio waves could control the brain.I assumed that the lack of interest in the matter in America meant there was nothing to it.A dogma of physics had long held sway over discussions of radiofrequency (RF). Ionizingradiation—the kind issued by x-rays—heats and sometimes burns the body and damages thebasic building blocks of the genetic material that rests in the center of all living cells, our DNA. Inorder for any biological effect to take place, so goes the dogma, you have to have heat.Non-ionizing radiation of the sort emitted by cell phones had to be safe. The dogma holds thatwithout overt warming nothing harmful could happen.Like much scientific speculation, this widely held belief turned out to be wrong. Like most humans,scientists don’t like to admit the need to correct their deepest convictions. Intrigued and unsettledby the British report, I began to read the experimental literature on RF, as I was completing twodecades of research that went into my book,

The Secret History of the War on Cancer

. I foundnumerous studies indicating that exposures to radiofrequency at precisely the conditions posed bycell phones could cause a host of biological effects ranging from damage to DNA to leakage in theblood-brain barrier. I soon learned that the British had not been wacky, just far ahead of the rest of the world in issuing the Stewart Commission report warning that children should not use cellphones.I remember talking with my husband one evening about all this. I came home and said, “Honey, Ithink I’ve found something really, really important for public health.”He murmured, as longtime spouses do, “That’s great, sweetheart. What is it? Why are you soupset?”

Science & Environmental Health Network - Are Cell Phones Safe? - Oc...http://www.sehn.org/Volume_14-5.html#top2 von 56.11.2009 08:32

“Well, if I’m right, we could be in really big trouble in a few decades. It’s cell phones. Cell phonescould turn out to be a dreadful problem.” I said.“What on earth are you talking about?” he asked.I explained what I was learning. America was way behind the rest of the world on this issue.Lennart Hardell in Sweden and Elihu Richter in Israel had produced troubling reports—cell phonesignals got into the brain. The human head actually functions like an antenna taking RF signalsinto the brain. Worse yet, it looked like long-term use of cell phones was tied with doubled risks of brain cancer in those who used them the longest.

Why contradictory results?The Biointiative Report

came out in 2007 and sent shock waves through parts of the researchcommunity. The product of Cindy Sage, an experienced environmental consultant, and DavidCarpenter, a distinguished researcher and former dean of public health at State University of NewYork, this report by more than two dozen expert scientists provided a concise overview of studiesranging from experimental work in cell cultures and animals to the evolving and contradictoryefforts of epidemiologists.The sheer volume of evidence was daunting. Their work reviewed more than a thousand studies,many of which showed that radiofrequency exposures just like those released by phones coulddamage cells, impede neurotransmitters, cause leakage into the brain, and even worsenperformance, insomnia, and memory loss.However, there was no denying that most published studies of RF found no effect at all. Henry Laiof the University of Washington—a pioneer in the field—identified a peculiar sort of publicationbias at work. When he produced break-through studies in 1994 showing that RF could damagethe DNA of rat brain cells, industry tried to get him fired and block publication of his research.They also funded what is now termed ‘advocacy research’—giving money to scientists with theexplicit intent of undermining suspicions that had been raised about the safety of RF. As fundingfor his own work on RF dried up, Lai left the field for a while. Sensing that what had happened tohim was no accident, Lai turned his own scientific microscope on the funding for RF research over all and produced a simple finding—in looking at all the studies conducted on RF, he determinedthat the chances that any study would find that cell phones were harmful depended on who hadpaid for the work. If a study was funded by industry—as most were—the chances they would findany risk was about .2. But if studies were independently funded—and a few were—the chance thatresults would be positive was .8.Still, the majority of scientists, including Nobel Laureate Robert Weinberg, who, like other scientificluminaries with no training in RF science, has been a consultant to the cell phone industry, hold tothe dogma that without warming nothing can happen biologically. This view has been carefullynurtured. Public relations firms have ensured that Lai’s work was deliberately targeted and“war-gamed,” employing others to launch critical attacks on findings that RF could be harmful.Science became simply a tool in the public relations strategy. The notion that without generating achange in temperature there could be no biologic effect became widely bandied about asscientifically implausible-- a violation of the basic laws of physics.

Herberman sounds the alarm

As I was finalizing my book in 2006, I went to talk with my boss, Ronald B. Herberman, thendirector of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. As one of the world’s top cancer biologists, Herberman knew good science from bad. As a grandfather and cancer survivor, he alsohad a deeply personal interest in reducing risk and, like me, was disgusted with evidence of howlong and hard industry had manipulated information about various hazards--asbestos, vinylchloride, benzene, and now cell phones. He encouraged me to lay out the facts, including theheavy hand of industry in shaping and molding public grasp of the issues and the growing number of troubling findings indicating that the dogmatic view of RF was wrong—RF signals can producebiological changes at levels that do not generate any increase in temperature.Convinced that there was a need to warn others about the potential dangers of cell phones and of the need for basic research on the issue, Herberman began talking with colleagues about theissue and decided to do something about it. As Director of the nation’s third busiest cancer center,Herberman issued an advisory in July 2008 to the three thousand staff members of the cancer institute. He urged them to take some simple precautions: reduce direct exposure of the head tocell phones by using a speakerphone or earpiece and avoid keeping the phone turned on whileclosely attached to their bodies.Within days, Herberman’s notice made it around the world. For years, scientists like the prolific anddistinguished Lai had shown that radiofrequency signals could disrupt living cells. Groups such asthe

International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety

and the Bioinitiative Report andothers had called for such action. What was different? As the author of more than seven hundredscientific articles and one of the most influential cancer scientists in the world, Herberman was notknown to take personal or scientific risks. His scientific work had set the stage for major programsof cancer research. The fact that someone of his stature had weighed in on the topic changed theequation. Concerns about cell phones could no longer be marginalized. The world began to takenotice.