More research is urgently needed into the effects of cellphones on the brain, reports Ben Potter from London
‘EAR, what’s all this fuss about cellphones? Are cellphones bad for the brain?
The possibility that they could be is cause for serious concern, says Australian writer and commentator on the communications industry, Stewart Fist. He argues the accumulation of evidence of possible damage to health puts the onus on mobile-phone companies and their suppliers to prove the phones are safe.
“We have come to the stage where we have got to say to the companies, `the ball’s in your court, it’s up to you to prove safety’, rather than the researchers and consumers having to prove danger,” he says.
A few scientific studies have suggested micro-wave electromagnetic radiation similar to that emitted by cellphones can damage DNA in rats and mice, and slightly raise levels of a substance associated with tumour growth.
But these studies have not been accepted by the scientific community, and legal actions that have reached the United States courts have foundered for lack of scientific evidence.
Scientific regulatory bodies prefer to rely on a much larger body of research into low frequency electromagnetic radiation from power lines that, they say, has failed to find proof of adverse effects.
The United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board says: “Scientific data relating to cancer and exposure to electromagnetic radiation at the [microwave] frequencies used by hand-held radio telephones are few and inconsistent. There is no clear support for the view that such exposures cause cancer. There is, however, a need for further research.”
Because the regulatory bodies require “sound scientific evidence relating to established effects on human health” before they can act, the impasse will last until the link between cellphones and cancer is either proved or disproved.
Meanwhile, their qualified statements are translated into sweeping endorsements of the safety of cellphones by an industry that has invested billions in networks, customers and plants – and marketing.
Fist notes cellphones may be just one source of everyday electromagnetic radiation, but they are jammed right next to the brain for much longer periods than, say, an electric shaver or hairdryer.
He maintains the money available for research into the possible health effects of using cellphones is inadequate, especially to fund replications of studies that have yielded disturbing results. Much of the funding for the research that is done comes from the phone companies themselves and they, argues Fist, would be reluctant to pay out if the findings were likely to be adverse.
He says several scientists in the field do not express the same level of concern in public as they do in private, for fear of being accused of “sensationalism” and losing their research funds.
Fist proposes that government research funds be bolstered by a levy on cellphone accounts, and that the revenues be administered at arm’s length from the phone companies. “It may be the best thing the companies ever do – they could find there’s no basis for concern. We have got to get money in for replication studies to find out if the risks are serious.”
Phone companies say they already fund enough scientific research, contribute to independent research bodies and, in Britain, are setting up a health and safety committee to channel research funds to scientists.
l Consumers should ignore devices that promise to minimise risk from electromagnetic radiation by forming a shield around the phone and antenna, says Paul Jackson, editor of Microwave Engineering Europe. They could have the opposite effect, since a modern digital phone cranks up its power output if its signal is impeded. If you really want to minimise any risk, just use your cellphone less.
ENDS