|
The debate about the seriousness of risks posed by cell phones
suddenly became less subdued than it had been for some time because
last July 23 Dr. Ronald B. Heberman, MD, director of the University
of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, reportedly memoed his staff
recommending (according to an Associated Press report) that children
use cell phones only in emergencies because it is not good for their
developing brains to be bombarded with radiation.
The AP report also said Heberman’s memo also
urges adults to stop using cell phones near their ears and use
speakerphones or wireless headsets instead.
The University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute’s Center for Environmental Oncology also has this advice
posted in its website.
This immediately sent alarms all over the world.
Newspapers, including The Manila Times, published the warning
from Dr. Heberman.
A respected health-matters author, Christopher
Wanjek, wrote in Live Science the following on July 29:
Ronald Herberman, director of the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, shocked just about all law-abiding
scientists (abiding by laws of physics, that is) with his warning
last week to his faculty and staff that cell phones might pose a
cancer risk.
This is troublesome because this time a really
smart person is saying it, not just another nutcase.
The basics still ring true, and Herberman
admitted as much: There’s no convincing evidence that cell phone
radiation causes cancer. Nor is there plausible biological or
physical reasoning for why it would cause cancer.
Herberman said his warning is based on early,
unpublished data from a 13-country study on cell phone use.
Scientists tend to be wary of preliminary results, and many are
scratching their heads over why Herberman would make such a stern
and public warning now.
Herberman countered that until there’s
definitive proof that cell phones are harmless, users should
practice some caution.
Play it safe
Herberman’s recommendations to minimize
exposure are a godsend, but not for the reasons he intended.
Limit conversations to a few minutes? Yes,
particularly when it’s about some stupid shoe sale you need to
tell everyone about. Avoid cell phone use in buses and trains to
limit second-hand exposure? Yes, particularly when I’m trying to
sleep.
Limit use in cars, because high speeds force the
phone to maximize power to find relay stations? Yes, yes: Let’s
shorten the bumper sticker reading “Shut up and drive” to just
“shut up.” This will definitely save lives as fewer chatty
drivers means fewer deadly traffic accidents.
If only Crazy Frog ringtone caused cancer.
Yet how cautious must we be? Devra Lee Davis,
Herberman’s colleague, told the Associated Press, “The question
is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain.”
Sounds frightening, but Russian roulette is
played with one bullet in a six-shooter. Cell phone Russian roulette
has perhaps one bullet in a gun that can hold several million.
Einstein and cell phones
Far from a scientific-illiterate technophobe,
Herberman is author or co-author of over 700 peer-reviewed cancer
articles dating back to the 1960s. He’s smarter than me and likely
you.
Yet Einstein, in a way, disproved the notion
that cell phone radiation causes cancer. It’s called the
photoelectric effect: Light is composed of photons which, when above
a threshold energy, can dislodge electrons from atoms—for example,
break chemical bonds in DNA and cause cancerous mutations.
That threshold energy is near the ultraviolet
part of the electromagnetic spectrum, thousands of times more
energetic than cell phone radio waves. UV, X-rays and gamma rays
cause cancer. These photons are like golf balls, whereas radio
photons are like cotton balls. You can throw millions of cotton
balls against a window; it just won’t break.
Heated arguments and hoaxes
Despite myriad studies showing no increased
cancer risk from up to 20 years of cell phone use, some scientists
continue to probe—as they should, given the omnipresence of cell
phones.
One alternate theory is that heat generated by
cell phones can cook brain cells. This notion inspired a well-known
hoax a decade ago, a demonstration of how two cell phones could cook
an egg in 65 minutes. The lark seemed plausible and was illustrated
in a series of stills on the Internet.
Then Cardo Systems, a provider of Bluetooth
headsets, made videos of cells phones teaming up in groups of threes
or fours to pop popcorn. Kernels are digitally removed from the
video as popped popcorn is dropped onto the table. This publicity
stunt proved successful enough to convince many of the power of cell
phone radiation.
One problem with the heat theory is that the sun
can heat your head far more efficiently than a cell phone. And your
body does a rather decent job at regulating heat, anyway.
Cancer calling
Each type of living tissue absorbs radiation at
a different frequency. So it is plausible that cell phone radiation
bypasses the skin and skull and is absorbed selectively by brain
tissue.
But scientists see only marginal evidence for
changes at the cellular level induced by cell phone radiation in
Petri dishes, fruit flies and mice. Similarly in human studies, such
as the 13-country study Herberman was privy to, called INTERPHONE,
there is at best only an inkling of evidence that cell phones might
cause cancer if you use them long enough, for 30 or more years.
If there’s a cancer association, it might be
from the stress of being plugged in to a cell phone 24/7.
We need to relax
No one seems to mention how many lives are saved
by cell phones. Police and emergency crews are informed of trouble
nearly instantly now. Banning the technology would be shortsighted.
But seeing how millions of people still smoke
and have unprotected sex, despite warnings, Herberman’s message
likely won’t make a dent in changing behavior. (End of Wanjek’s
article).
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books
Bad Medicine and Food At Work. His Bad Medicine column appears each
Tuesday on LiveScience.
Web MD’s Q&A
Web MD’s Dr. Brunilda Nazario wrote a Q&A
on “Are Cell Phones Safe” and tells us, among other helpful
information, what key US authorities say about Herberman’s memo.
“What does the FDA say?”
The FDA hasn’t posted a specific reply to
Herberman’s memo, but the FDA’s web site has lots of information
on cell phones and health.
“The available evidence does not show that any
health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is
no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe,”
states background information on the FDA’s web site.
The FDA explains that wireless phones emit low
levels of radio frequency (RF) while being used and very low levels
of RF in standby mode.
“Whereas high levels of RF can produce health
effects [by heating tissues], exposure to low-level RF that does not
produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects,”
the FDA states. “Many studies of low-level RF exposures have not
found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some
biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been
confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers
have had difficulty in reproducing these studies, or in determining
the reasons for inconsistent results.”
“What does the American Cancer Society
say?”
(This is quoted in the story “Do the cell
phone makers’ SAR safety numbers make you safe?”)
“What does the American Academy of
Pediatrics say?”
Paul Fisher, MD, MHS, leads the American Academy
of Pediatrics’ committee on neurology. He’s also an associate
professor of neurology at Stanford University and the Beirne family
medical director of the Center for Children’s Brain Tumors at the
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.
The American Academy of Pediatrics
doesn’t have an official stance on kids’ cell phone use, Fisher
tells WebMD.
There is no established cancer risk in
children from cell phones, nor in adults,” Fisher says. He notes
that researchers from the largest study, which is ongoing in
Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, and includes children as well
as adults, “all agree there is really no compelling evidence there
whatsoever that cell phones are associated with brain tumors or
other tumors in children.”
We’re not seeing any increased risk, not
seeing any association; we’re not seeing any new tumors; we’re
not seeing any changes in tumor patterns” in the research, Fisher
says.
As for concerns about salivary gland tumors or
behavioral problems in kids whose moms used cell phones during
pregnancy, Fisher says, “these are all small studies here and
there and there’s really nothing to indicate a health risk.”
As scientists, we certainly keep our minds and
eyes open,” Fisher says. “But there’s just nothing out there,
and parents should be reassured that there is no established risk,
and they should feel good about the choices they make for their
children.”
Should parents limit kids’ cell phone use?
Fisher, who spoke to WebMD via cell phone, says
he sees good reason to limit kids’ cell phone use—just not out
of cancer fears.
“I restrict my own kids’ use of cell phones.
We don’t sit in bed and talk on our cell phones at night, and we
don’t get to use them when we’re 5 years old. But that’s more
about good parenting and parental choice than about science,”
Fisher says.
“Common sense should prevail,” he says,
noting that kids can get distracted by cell phones. “I don’t
think kids should be given unrestrained access 24-7 to cell phones.
It should be limited. But it shouldn’t be done because of paranoia
or fear of perceived risks that aren’t established.”
Setting limits “out of your own philosophy and
life choices, that’s very different than doing it out of paranoia.
That’s why I’m disappointed by the statement from the folks in
Pittsburgh . . . it’s not an appeal to healthy living and happy
development for children, it’s an appeal to people’s paranoia
about modern living.”
|
