Dangerous Devices?

Apr 1, 2001 12:00 PM, Nikki Swartz, Assistant Data Editor

There's a lot of confusing, if not misleading, information circulating about the supposed link between wireless phones and health.

For example, you can visit one Web site and read: “A microwave oven cooks your food, and a mobile phone is frying your brain. Yes! They are both microwave waves.” At the same site, you can take a test to find out whether you're safe from electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

The goal is, of course, to sell unwitting consumers an “electromagnetic stabilizer,” which is a small, triangular, laminated disk that you attach to your wireless phone, or even wear around your neck, to “stabilize the excess radiation entering your body, rendering it harmless” — all for only $28.95.

This may be an extreme example, but today more than ever, amidst an environment of conflicting scientific studies and class-action lawsuits, consumers are concerned about the possible effects of wireless-phone use on their health. In the past three months, several studies stated that there's no solid evidence that wireless-phone usage causes cancer.

But to date, no study has provided the definitive data that would prove once and for all that wireless phones are either harmful or harmless. So this topic isn't going away any time soon, which means the entire wireless industry must responsibly educate millions of consumers around the world, like it or not.

In a study released in February's Journal of the National Cancer Institute (www.jnci.oupjournals.org), researchers with the Danish Cancer Society (www.cancer.dk) and the International Epidemiology Institute (www.ieiltd.com) studied 420,095 Danish wireless-phone users between 1982 and 1995. They found users were no more likely to have cancer than the general population.

In January, The New England Journal of Medicine (www.nejm.org) published a National Institute of Health (www.nih.gov) study that compared wireless-phone use among 782 people with brain tumors to the usage of 799 who used wireless handsets for an hour a day or more for five or more years. The study found no connection between wireless phones and brain tumors, and concluded that those who used wireless phones were no more at risk of brain tumors than non-users.

In December 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association (jama.ama-assn.org) published an American Health Foundation (www.ahf.org) study, funded by federal and wireless industry grants, that compared phone habits of 469 brain-cancer patients to those of 422 healthy people matched by age, sex and other characteristics. Participants with cancer averaged 2.5 hours of phone use per month, while the control group averaged 2.2 hours monthly. The conclusion was that wireless phones aren't associated with risk of brain cancer.

But most scientists agree that more research is needed to determine health effects of long-term wireless-phone use. Studies also must analyze digital, as well as analog, technology to give consumers the most accurate information. According to the American Health Foundation's study, newer phones produce signals that “might have different effects on biological tissues than analog telephones.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (www.fda.gov) has said that there isn't enough evidence yet to regulate wireless phones or even make a decision on their safety, and people who are concerned should consider using headsets with their handsets.

But despite such findings, lawsuits have been filed against the industry in several states, including Maryland and Louisiana. For instance, Dr. Christopher Newman, a Baltimore neurologist with brain cancer, has blamed radio waves from his wireless phone and filed a lawsuit, seeking almost $800 billion from Motorola (www.motorola.com) and other industry players.

Some high-profile lawyers even are comparing the wireless industry to the tobacco industry and demonizing wireless phones as they have done with cigarettes. In a case that the industry will watch closely, Louisiana lawyer Michael Allweiss recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Louisiana man stating that companies that make and sell wireless phones know they may be dangerous.

The lawsuit does not allege that wireless phones caused specific health problems in the man, but it does say that wireless phones should have been sold with headsets to reduce users' exposure to radiation and avoid the “very real” risk of health problems. The suit asks that wireless-phone users be reimbursed if they already have purchased headsets. If they haven't, it asks that the industry provide them for their nearly 110 million U.S. customers.

As lawsuits make headlines and consumers become increasingly concerned about a wireless phone/cancer connection, the industry should be concerned, too.

Critics such as George Carlo, a former cellular industry researcher and co-author of Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in a Wireless Age, say it takes years for brain tumors to develop, so it will be years, maybe decades, before evidence of a link between cancer and wireless phones can be found.

A 2000 U.K.-based study, “Mobile Phones & Health,” released by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (www.iegmp.org.uk), concluded that it's “not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.”

This group also said young users were more vulnerable to health risks and recommended that “the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged,” and that the industry shouldn't promote the use of wireless phones by children.

Last year, Disney (disney.go.com) stopped licensing its cartoon characters for wireless phones in response to consumer fear about the potential risks of wireless phones to children's health.

And at least one wireless carrier has posted signs in its retail stores recommending that parents purchase their children pagers instead of wireless phones. Metrocall, a nationwide wireless-service reseller, also suggests that subscribers use earphones or headsets instead of holding wireless phones to their heads (www.metrocall.com).

A Metrocall spokesperson said that the Alexandria, VA-based company takes no position on the science, but “decided if we were going to err, we wanted to err on the side of angels.”

But Elliott Hamilton, The Strategis Group (www.strategisgroup.com) director of global wireless, said so far none of this really has affected consumers.

“Even though reports are coming out almost every week, we still don't see any change in behavior from the cellular users, whether in usage or purchasing behavior,” he said.

And if negative reports and lawsuits are scaring the public, he said it's not scaring them to a degree to which they're changing their usage or buying behavior.

“That doesn't mean they don't keep an eye on it or aren't concerned, but there haven't been any definitive studies that people can or can't say one way or the other,” he said. “It hasn't negatively affected the industry. We keep seeing usage going up to well over 200 minutes a month for the average user — that's doubled in the past five years.”

Megan Matthews, Nokia spokesperson, said she's worried about consumers obtaining misleading information. For example, some non-industry Web sites have posted standard absorption rate (SAR) information and lists that compare the radiation output of particular phones and rate them from best to worst. But the origin of this information isn't always clear.

“That is misleading and a disservice to consumers,” Matthews said. “SAR is not the radiation output of a phone, it's the amount of energy that the body absorbs. There's no scientific basis suggesting that any phone that has an SAR value between zero and the requirement, which is 1.6W/kg, is any less safe or more safe than another phone.”

Matthews said reported SAR values are maximum worst-case scenario values recorded in a laboratory. Tests are performed at the maximum power output that the phone can achieve, in different positions, different frequencies and different channels, within the frequencies for long periods of time.

“When a consumer is using a phone, it's typically operating at around 25% of the allowable power, and it's fluctuating,” she said. “It's highly unlikely that a consumer would ever be at maximum power level, so, therefore, comparing maximum recorded SAR doesn't make any sense.”

Because this information is confusing, educating consumers is important. According to Matthews, Nokia's customer-service line gets a small percentage of calls from consumers who want to know the radiation output of their phones. Nokia customer-service agents explain SAR in a context that's relevant and makes sense to consumers.

“Our perspective is to give the consumer as much information as possible (and) put it in a context that they can understand because otherwise, to quote somebody famous, it's just a bunch of ‘fuzzy numbers,’” she said.

Last year, CTIA (www.wow-com.com) mandated that all new FCC-certified (www.fcc.gov) phones entering the market after August 2000 have a designator on the package telling consumers that they have been certified to meet all RF-emissions guidelines. It also requires text that explains SAR, how it's measured, what it means for the consumer and the maximum-recorded SAR value for that particular phone somewhere in or on the box.

Some handset manufacturers also disclose radiation levels in a brochure inside the phone box. Some phone packages bear an ID number consumers can use to look up radiation-absorption levels on the FCC's Web site.

Consumers can visit Nokia's Web site at www.nokiausa.com to see SAR values for its phones, Matthews said. The handset manufacturer also includes this information on its handset packaging, both inside with a printed manual and outside the box, for both new and older-model phones. A group at Nokia monitors what's happening on the science side and performs radio-frequency and antenna research. A standards group studies standard harmonization, changes in testing and education efforts.

The responsibility to educate consumers doesn't just rest on Nokia and other handset vendors' shoulders. Two carriers declined to be interviewed for this story because they said they don't make the phones, so they didn't want to comment. But Strategis' Hamilton said carriers must do their part.

Other than packaging literature with the phones, manufacturers don't have a connection with the consumer as carriers do, he said. It's important that carriers take charge.

Matthews agreed that the responsibility should be shared.

“The carriers' sales forces should be educated because the consumer interacts with them,” she said. “The customer-service lines need to know, just like they have to understand how to turn on the phone or how to use the feature set or make a data call; SAR is a technical requirement.”

Spokesperson Nancy Stark said Verizon Wireless provides consumers with information on wireless phones and health via an in-store brochure that's also posted online at www.verizonwireless.com. The brochure answers questions such as, “What is SAR?” as well as provides links to studies and worldwide organizations for more in-depth information.

More studies are under way. CTIA and the FDA have signed an agreement to conduct collaborative, ongoing research on health and wireless phones. Third parties will conduct the research, with industry funding and FDA oversight. The FDA will review the results of the completed studies and issue a report to CTIA.

Hamilton said putting RF levels on the phone packages is a good first step for consumers.

“At least it informs them that this phone is one level and that phone is another level. If that's important to consumers, they'll start paying attention to it,” he said.

But according to The Strategis Group's research and consumer surveys, consumers aren't concerned yet.

“I wouldn't say dark cloud, but it's a gray cloud out there,” Hamilton said. “It's way too early to say it's going to be a problem in the industry. There really haven't been any definitive studies showing any link.”

There is a lot of information for consumers online, but handset manufacturers warn that some may be misleading. According to the cellular-phone radiation data-information Web site, www.domode.com, its researchers have logged more than 2,500 hours researching standard absorption rates (SARs), which were collected from the FCC.

A handset with a higher SAR may or may not be safer than one with a lower level, but such data lets consumers judge for themselves.

(The FCC maximum limit on a wireless phone is 1.60.)

Conflicting Results

Recent research that has analyzed the suspected connection between wireless phones and cancer may confuse consumers:

• World Health Organization, 1997 (www.who.int): Found an increased risk of lymphoma in genetically altered mice after exposure to radiation at the level of wireless phones.

• Integrated Laboratory Systems, 1999 (www.ils-inc.com): Researchers found that wireless-phone radiation causes genetic changes in human blood cells under certain conditions.

• American Health Foundation, 2000 (www.ahf.org): This study compared 469 people with brain cancer with 422 healthy people and found no relationship between use of wireless phones and the risk of brain cancer.

• National Cancer Institute, 2001 (www.nci.nih.gov): Scientists compared 782 people with brain tumors to 799 healthy people and found no relationship between wireless-phone use and risk of brain cancer. They concluded: “These data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand-held cellular phones cause brain tumors.”

• Danish Cancer Society (www.cancer.dk) and International Epidemiology Institute (www.ieiltd.com), 2001: This study looked at 420,095 wireless-phone users over a 13-year period (1982-95) and found no increased risk of cancer, compared with the general population of Denmark. It concluded: “The results do not support the hypothesis of an association between the use of these telephones and cancer.”