|
|
| Thestar.com > Entertainment/Life
> Health |
| Dec. 10, 2000. 01:12 AM |
 Printer friendly version |
 Mail this
story to a friend |
|
Cell phone
safety: Not an easy call |
|
Scientists
split on cancer risk, tissue damage |
Scott
Simmie
FEATURE WRITER |
Planning on buying a cell phone for a loved
one this Christmas? You're not alone.
Worried about those sporadic reports linking their use with
health risks? You're not alone there, either.
But you can rest easy. What should be the most definitive
science yet is on the way. And you'll only have to wait five years.
For those consumers concerned about the radiation emitted by
their cell phones, the news is not exactly reassuring.
``I'd heard they can cause tumours and stuff like that,''
says Damien Martin of Ajax.
The 25-year-old financial analyst isn't sure he believes some
of the more alarming stories he's read. But he also isn't sure he
embraces the industry position that everything's hunky-dory.
``I have my doubts,'' he says.
That's understandable. While there's a growing number of
studies showing a clear link between cell phone use while driving
and car accidents, the data on other health risks is considerably
muddier.
Some recent studies have suggested that even low doses of the
kind of radio frequency energy emitted by such phones may cause
subtle changes at the cellular level. There's no evidence that's bad
for you, but - at the moment - we really don't know for sure.
It's that ``dunno'' factor that will result, later this
month, in health warnings included with all new cell phones sold in
the United Kingdom. The leaflets will recommend that children limit
their use of the phones. But it won't suggest there's a direct
health risk - only that the science is incomplete.
So. What's a concerned consumer to make of all this?
Depends on whom you ask.
``This issue has been very well researched,'' says
epidemiologist Dr. Daniel Krewski, who was a member of an expert
panel assembled by the Royal Society of Canada to study the issue.
He's also chair of the Wireless Information Resource Centre, an
industry-established (but independent) body created to provide the
public with objective scientific information about wireless
communications and health. His conclusion?
HARMLESS...
`None
of the evidence provides any clear indications of adverse
health effects.' |
| - Dr. Daniel Krewski
|
...OR NOT
`We
have evidence of genetic damage (and) of an increase in the
risk of tumours.' |
- Dr. George Carlo
|
``None of the evidence
provides any clear indications of adverse health effects,'' he says.
Whew. That feels much better. Especially when you consider
the near-exponential growth in sales. In a mere decade, the number
of Canadians who've joined the wireless ranks has grown from 525,000
to 8.9 million - with two million of those signing on this year.
The relief fades, however, when you start talking to Dr.
George Carlo. The Washington-based epidemiologist and lawyer has
also read pretty much all the science out there. In fact, he's the
guy the U.S. Cellular Telephone Industry Association hired to
oversee a six-year, arm's-length, $27 million (U.S.) research
program. And, unlike Krewski, he's concerned.
``We already have enough data to know that there are
biological effects from radio frequency radiation. We have evidence
of genetic damage, we have evidence of an increase in the risk of
tumours,'' he says. ``So that's enough right there to say that
there's something going on - and it doesn't look good.''
Yikes.
Depending on how you interpret (and select) the available
data, both scientists are correct. There are plenty of studies
indicating that the radio frequencies emitted by wireless
communications devices pose no risk; a smaller number of studies,
however, raise questions.
Carlo believes the industry ``cherry-picks'' - embracing
research that mirrors its interests while downplaying or dismissing
that which does not. The counter-argument is that Carlo picks some
worrisome cherries of his own, focusing on the relatively few
studies that indicate potential health risks.
``There's . . . information to support virtually anybody's
argument,'' he says. ``And that's the phenomenon that you're seeing:
There's enough that's been done for the industry to take comfort;
there's also enough in what's been done for others who believe that
there are problems, to use that to say that there are problems. And
it's unfortunate that the consumers are caught in the middle.''
`There really is no hard
data anywhere to support the idea that cell phones have a
relationship to brain tumours.' |
- Margaret Young
Brain Tumour
Foundation of Canada
|
Cell phones and cancer. The
words were juxtaposed in headlines around the globe back in 1993,
after an episode of CNN's Larry King Live.
The guest was a Florida widower by the name of David Reynard.
His 33-year-old wife had died of brain cancer; a tumour Reynard said
was located precisely where she held the phone. He was suing the
manufacturer. (He lost.)
The fallout from that show was enormous. Investors dumped
shares in wireless stocks. More lawsuits were filed (also
unsuccessful). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
National Cancer Institute advised shaken consumers they could
consider limiting the time they spent on cell phones. People were
scared.
The industry, in an effort to quell a public relations
nightmare and reassure consumers, responded by funding the massive
research program chaired by Carlo. The publicity - and potential
health implications - spurred many other studies and expert reviews
of the data. The hope was that the question of cell phones and
health would be answered once and for all.
It has not been. Not totally. Although what scientists call
``the balance of evidence'' doesn't indicate there's a problem, even
the industry agrees there's still more work to be done.
``The industry position is twofold: first, there are no
demonstrated public health risks,'' says Peter Barnes, president and
chief executive officer of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications
Association, the group representing wireless carriers and
manufacturers. ``But the second component is that there is need for
continuing and additional research.''
On that, there is widespread agreement. Whether it's Health
Canada, the Royal Society expert panel, the manufacturers or Carlo,
there is a consensus that we must clearly answer some of the
unknowns.
``The single most important recommendation (of the Royal
Society panel) was for a large-scale study of people using cellular
telephones and potential cancer risk,'' says Krewski. In fact,
Canada will soon be participating in a 13-nation World Health
Organization study that will directly examine the health effects of
exposure to energy fields - including those generated by cell
phones.
``It'll take about five years, it'll be the largest study of
its kind ever conducted,'' says Krewski. ``And at the end of that
five-year period we should have direct evidence on whether or not
cellular telephones pose any kind of health risk.''
Critics like Carlo argue five years is a long time to wait.
``More research over the next five years does absolutely
nothing for consumers today - I can't stress that enough,'' he says.
``More research is part of what needs to be done. But the hard
question is: What do we do today, when the science is uncertain?''
In theory, any potential health risk would be the result of
low levels of radiation being absorbed by body tissue. We know that
approximately half of a cell phone's radiation penetrates about a
centimetre into the head and hands of the user when the phone is
held close to the ear.
While that may sound creepy, radio frequency (RF) energy -
though a type of radiation - has nothing in common with x-rays. It
does not cause radioactivity in the body, nor has it been shown to
break chemical bonds. (Although one well-publicized U.S. study
indicated genetic damage, other scientists have not confirmed the
findings.)
What's very clear is that at certain frequencies and power
levels, RF energy can heat tissue: that's how your microwave works.
That's also why Health Canada has a guideline designed to protect
Canadians from RF energy that could cause these thermal effects.
It's called Safety Code 6. It limits the energy emitted by
cell phones (and absorbed by human tissue) to a rate well below that
believed to cause any adverse health effects.
``Nobody questions the limits today - (no one questions)
whether they're safe levels,'' says Peter Minaki, manager for
regulatory affairs and standardization for Ericsson Canada and an
engineer. ``That (Safety Code 6) is an established figure.''
Questions have been raised, however, over non-thermal
effects: subtle biological changes that can occur even when levels
of energy absorbed do not exceed Safety Code 6. For instance,
research indicates that the rate at which certain molecules move
between cell membranes appears to change.
``There is a growing body of scientific evidence,'' states
the Royal Society's expert panel report, ``which suggests that
exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels required
to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and
tissues.''
One of the unknowns is whether or not these non-thermal
effects can cause problems. Krewski doesn't think so - but can't say
for sure until the science is in.
``These biological effects, which are of no known health
significance, probably really should be clarified to strengthen the
assurances of safety that we currently have,'' he says.
In the U.K., an expert panel similar to Krewski's also noted
these biological effects. And while it stated there is no indication
of any resulting health risk, it did recommend that children - whose
brains and skulls are still developing - be discouraged from making
non-essential calls via cell phones. It also called for a
``precautionary approach . . . until more detailed and
scientifically robust information becomes available.''
The Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada echoes the U.K.
report's somewhat cautious tone.
``There really is no hard data anywhere to support the idea
that cell phones have a relationship to brain tumours,'' says
Margaret Young, the foundation's director of development. ``But of
course, in the meantime, it's wise not to use cell phones
excessively.''
But what about Carlo's assertion of a connection between
tumours and cell phone use?
A peer-reviewed Swedish study published in May focused on 209
people with recently diagnosed brain tumours. It then compared their
cell phone use with the wireless habits of a group of healthy folks.
It found a correlation between the location of the tumours and the
side of the head on which the phone was usually held. The report
stated, however, that ``this result was based on a low number of
exposed subjects and must be interpreted with caution.'' It was
based on just 13 of the patients.
`There's . . .
information to support virtually anybody's argument . . . it's
unfortunate that the consumers are caught in the
middle.' |
- Dr. George Carlo
|
But the study did highlight
an important fact. Despite the large body of evidence from which
we've extrapolated assurances of safety, very little work has been
done on real people using real cell phones in the real world. As
Canada's Wireless Information Resource Centre points out, ``there is
a paucity of research examining their impact on human health.''
That, in a nutshell, is why critics like Carlo are concerned.
Even an exceedingly slight risk, he argues, could have vast
implications.
``This is the fastest growing technology in the history of
civilization . . . Around the world, there are half a billion people
exposed to a product that we are not sure is safe,'' he says.
But, say other scientists, regulatory bodies and the
industry, we're sure enough.
``What I take comfort in is that the global and national
organizations which have looked at a broad range of studies,
including Dr. Carlo's, have come to the same conclusion. And that is
that there's no demonstrated public health risk,'' says Barnes.
Semantically, such a statement is not the equivalent of
saying cell phones are perfectly safe. But science can't make such
promises.
``Absolute safety is something we probably can't guarantee
for virtually anything in life,'' says Krewski, who - incidentally -
does use a cell phone. His only precaution is to fully extend the
antenna to keep the most intense spot of energy slightly away from
his head. Carlo opts for using a headset and microphone, holding the
phone itself away from his body.
Damien Martin, the cell phone user out in Ajax, is also
taking precautions. He's purchased something called a Wave Shield, a
gizmo designed to reduce the radiation that reaches his head.
``I hope it's protecting me,'' he says of the $29.95 device.
``Whether it is or not, I don't know.''
Just as we don't know - not for certain - whether he even
needs it.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Advertising |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| | |
