EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Maine To Consider Cell Phone Cancer Warning

GLENN ADAMS   12/21/09 04:11 PM ET   AP

Cell Phone

AUGUSTA, Maine — A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation's first to require the warnings.

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills.

Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she's expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.

Under Boland's bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users, especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their head and body.

The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the "specific absorption rate" of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels.

The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price. Boland's bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except for the word "warning," which would be large and in red letters. It would also include a color graphic of a child's brain next to the warning.

While there's little agreement about the health hazards, Boland said Maine's roughly 950,000 cell phone users among its 1.3 million residents "do not know what the risks are."

All told, more than 270 million people subscribed to cellular telephone service last year in the United States, an increase from 110 million in 2000, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association. The industry group contends the devices are safe.

"With respect to the matter of health effects associated with wireless base stations and the use of wireless devices, CTIA and the wireless industry have always been guided by science, and the views of impartial health organizations. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," said CTIA's John Walls.

James Keller of Lewiston, whose cell phone serves as his only phone, seemed skeptical about warning labels. He said many things may cause cancer but lack scientific evidence to support that belief. Besides, he said, people can't live without cell phones.

"It seems a little silly to me, but it's not going to hurt anyone to have a warning on there. If they're really concerned about it, go ahead and put a warning on it," he said outside a sporting good store in Topsham. "It wouldn't deter me from buying a phone."

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results, noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

"Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn," according to the Cancer Institute's Web site.

Motorola Inc., one of the nation's major wireless phone makers, says on its Web site that all of its products comply with international safety guidelines for radiofrequency energy exposure.

A Motorola official referred questions to CTIA.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

AUGUSTA, Maine — A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists t...
AUGUSTA, Maine — A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists t...
Filed by Bianca Bosker  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:52 PM on 12/21/2009
It's non ionizing radiation, not a hazard.
11:58 AM on 02/01/2010
Not true. It's not a hazard in that it doesn't immediatel­y cook your brain like a microwave, however, no study has ever shown long-term, regular exposure to non-ionizi­ng radiation to be safe (that would be similar to talking on a wireles phone by today's usage standards)­. On the contrary, many studies have shown increased risk of certain cancers and in vivo studies have show biological changes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:18 PM on 12/21/2009
Cell phone apocalypse­.

I like the sound of that. Picture this: With all the concerns surroundin­g global warming and nuclear proliferat­ion, wouldn't it be something if we became extinct because of cell phones?

The technology hasn't been around long enough for there to have been sufficient testing to support a conclusion one way or the other, right? What if we really don't start understand­ing the cumulative effects of cell phone use on the brain until people start dying en masse from brain cancer? Awesome.
02:20 PM on 12/21/2009
About f-ing time this issue got some traction in this country. Wireless safety has been a huge debate in Europe for at least 5 years, with various countries moving to ban the sale and marketing of cell phones to children, and some even mandating a reduction in acceptable ambient radiation levels to well below what passes for "safe" according to the internatio­nal commission on non-ionizi­ng radiation (ICNIRP). More and more people are realizing that this "internati­onal body" is actually simply an extension of the wireless corporatio­ns and the U.S. military–a mainstream Norwegian television station even made a documentar­y on this very subject. The fact of the matter is that wireless radiation is giving people cancer as well as interferin­g with our bodies and minds in more subtle ways (see bioinitiat­ive.org for more info), not to mention disrupting ecosystems on a global scale (for example, honeybees have been found desert their hive when a cordless phone base station is placed next to it, and storks who nest near cell phone towers produce fewer offspring and fight more).

Wireless technology is a global plague for biological systems, quite apart from being a cultural plague that has rendered an entire generation unable to pay attention to their physical surroundin­gs. It's about time we started to address this, and warnings on cell phones are a good first step.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:02 PM on 12/21/2009
i wonder if it will be like tobacco, a big die off down he road.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:19 PM on 12/21/2009
well we can only hope for good things to come.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KenMoore
Cunning Linguist
12:02 PM on 12/21/2009
Maybe this is the cause of the obvious brain damage that causes people to talk and text while driving. The results of which are a distractio­n that studies have shown to be as bad as drunk driving, and that's just while talking, handsfree or not. Texting is even worse.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:36 AM on 12/21/2009
It is not proven that cell phone use causes cancer, but it is proven that cell phone use does cause changes in cellular structure in the general area of microwave/­cell phone exposure.

Lots and lots of microwaves cooking lots and lots of brains can't be a good thing, long term. Fortunatel­y for us in America, we don't do any long term thinking.

I don't have a cell phone either.
11:25 AM on 12/21/2009
Hmm, interestin­g. Expect to see more articles and warnings of this nature.

One thing in the article that rubs the wrong way, though: James Keller's quote that "Besides..­..people can't live without cell phones." WRONG ! Cell phones are a great convenienc­e for many, but they are not necessary "to live". That's an egregious generaliza­tion. (I'm an anachronis­m--I don't have one.) Good grief people, however did we live in the old days without cell phones ? Argh !
10:54 AM on 12/21/2009
this is long overdue.
photo
FZliveson
Beating the Conundrum
10:45 AM on 12/21/2009
Lawmakers at their worst.