Whether or not there is bona fide danger in routine use of cell phones is, in fact, still unresolved. As often happens when the stakes are high and the science murky, passions and convictions tend to be running ahead of the data. There are, and have long been, scientists and citizens convinced that cell phones pose a significant threat; and there are, and have long been, counterparts convinced that we all have far more important things to worry about.
Both sides recently received another ear full of information to consider, courtesy of a study published in JAMA.
Investigators from the NIH asked 47 healthy adults to lend them their ears -- their right ears in particular. The researchers put cell phones to both ears and conducted PET scans of the brain (an imaging technique that measures metabolic activity in the form of glucose consumption) with both phones deactivated, and with the phone adjacent to the right ear activated, in random sequence. Activation of the right cell phone was in mute mode so that participants were blinded ('deafened'?) to the intervention.
The study generated three take-away messages that will likely do little to resolve the cell phone controversy any time soon. First, whole brain metabolic activity was unaffected by cell phone activation. Second, brain metabolic activity directly adjacent to an activated cell phone was significantly increased. And third, the researchers have no idea what, if any, clinical significance this has. Yes, they actually said that.
Which leads immediately to a question the rest of us need to grapple with: what do we do with this information in the mean time? For whatever it's worth, my suggestion is to accord it calm respect.
The calmness is easy to justify. A study that shows a change in glucose utilization by brain cells does not indictment of cell phones make. Brain cells routinely burn glucose for fuel, and do so faster or slower based on the work they do. REM sleep, an important indicator of sleep quality and essential to sleep's restorative powers, increases brain glucose utilization on PET scan. As, for that matter, does reading. So if increased metabolic activity in the brain is a cause to fear cell phones, I suppose it might be cause to stay away from your books and your bed as well.
But on the other hand, consider what this new study implies. Increased brain cell metabolism was unrelated to the usual work of the brain, namely thinking. In REM sleep, we are dreaming -- so the brain is at work. When we read, the brain is at work. But why should a radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic field we don't even know is there -- and thus, can't be thinking about -- change brain function?
It does. The fields emitted by cell phones affect the cells of the brain, no thinking required. Should we be comfortable with this? Can we afford to be complacent when we, and to a greater extent our children, spend an ever increasing proportion of our lives in close proximity to fields we now know silently, insidiously change our brains? My answer is no, which is why we owe the new study some respect, particularly given its context.
We have long known radio-frequency waves penetrate our bodies, as we now know they activate brain activity, but there is no clear evidence they harm us in the process. We are left with a mechanism by which cell phones could conceivably do harm, but no real indication that they do.
The published data, based on many studies and observations in hundreds of thousands of people, remain open to interpretation. One study in the Netherlands examined the issue in over 400,000 people, and found no evidence of harm. A meta-analysis in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, however, concluded there was possible evidence of increased risk of brain tumors from extended cell phone use demonstrated in studies least subject to bias. Invariably, mention is made of the need for more research.
Cell phones have only existed since the 1970s, been in use since the 1980s, and been truly popular since the '90s. So we only have a decade, or at most two, of meaningful data to analyze. Some cancers take two decades or more to develop, so it's possible, if unlikely, that we are waiting for a slow accumulation of damage to start revealing itself. We must therefore consider that absence of evidence is not tantamount to evidence of absence.
And, of course, we don't have intervention studies, with large groups randomly assigned to use cell phones, or place their calls on placebos instead. I'm not sure how placebo phones would work, but I have a sneaking suspicion the study subjects would catch on.
History suggests the possibility of seeing risk that isn't really there. The silicone breast implant controversy persists, despite consistent and rather compelling evidence that the implants do not cause autoimmune disease. The notion that immunization causes autism won't seem to die no matter how decisive the weight of evidence against any such association.
But a great deal of historical precedent cuts the other way. We have cozied up to an impressive array of genuine hazards with a misguided sense of security, including the radioactive radium that made watch faces glow in the dark but caused cancer; mercury used in hat-making that caused neurological disease; lead used in cookware that damaged nerve cells; asbestos in buildings and clothes that is still causing asbestosis and mesothelioma; thalidomide, a sedative that caused birth defects; Vioxx easing joint pain while causing heart attacks; and the list goes on.
If cell phones cause harm, the risk appears to be small, and the harm long delayed. But even one extra case of cancer in 100,000 people after 10 years of use would eventually turn into a huge and unacceptable public health toll. Such a hazard would be very hard to see at this point.
Let's turn to the practical. I will keep using my cell phone, and my kids will keep using theirs. I do think any risks are small. But I cannot be sure the risk is nil, and I am not wildly enthusiastic about the cells in my kids' brains being activated by anything other than thinking. So I will encourage my children to use their phones for good reason, rather than make them a permanent extension of their heads. There is certainly no cause for panic, but I'm not a fan of presumptive complacency.
The 19th century philosopher George Santayana wisely noted that those who do not learn from the follies of history are doomed to repeat them. The folly of rushing into hazards of our own devising with a false sense of security has filled many pages of our history books. Whether cell phone use will prove to be another example is far from certain. But when precedent calls, it is at least prudent to lend our ears.
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
Devra Davis, Ph.D.: Cell Phones and Brain Cancer: The Real Story
Devra Davis, Ph.D.: Cell Phone Radiation: Is It Dangerous?
Hyla Cass, M.D.: Are Cell Phones and Wi-Fi Hazardous to Your Health?
Mobile phone radiation and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7 Surprising Ways Cell Phones Affect Your Health - ABC News
AskMen.com - Health Effects of Using Cell Phones
WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
http://www.healthyfutures.com/blog/cellphoneradiation
http://www.healthyfutures.com/allergysensitivitysolutions/environment-electromagneticenergy
A brief lesson in the electromagnetic spectrum. It encompasses all wavelengths a photon (or unit of electromagnetic radiation) from gamma to radio waves. Cell phones transmit and receive microwaves. These waves are smaller than radiowaves but larger than the waves that make up the visible light spectrum (aka the colors we see). Roughly microwaves range form the size of people to small insects. The waves that are known to cause cancer are ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays. These waves are able to cause cancer precisely because they are small enough and vibrate with such a high frequency that they are able to interact with DNA and cause damage. Microwaves, because they are much larger than these other waves are unable to interact with the DNA (and you don't get cancer without DNA damage). You would have better luck saying the color blue causes cancer because its wavelength is closer to the size of the harmful rays than what cell phones emit.
Are they dangerous? Most agree that they are potentially dangerous.
Therefor, err on the side of caution and do not use them.
Result? No problem, no risk, no harm done.
Even if we assumed the scariest studies were absolutely true, they were never suggesting tumors occurred in a huge percentage of the population of cell phone users. It'd be interesting to know the worst case scenario risk, at least it'd be a starting point in assessing possible risk. I do understand that certain exposure (e.g., asbestos) may take 30 - 50 years to cause cancer, but perhaps even in those extremely delayed cases enough patients would present early that you'd suspect there was a danger.
You also see people carrying and wearing these things, and they're oblivious to other people, their surroundings, and, most importantly, motor vehicle traffic.
I read a story where a lady got knocked about 30 feet in the air, bounced off the pavement, hit her head, went into a coma, and 3 days later, she died of her injuries. There was at least one cellphone involved, I don't recall if it was her talking, or the driver that hit her, but the point is, your attention gets divided, you're not fully aware of your surroundings, and therefore potentially a hazard to yourself and others. Driving and talking has been rated equivalent to drinking and driving. What about talking and walking, is that the same as public intoxication?
We have 5 senses, to guide us through life, when one of em is tied up in a phone conversation, the other 4 might not be enough to compensate, plus your mental focus is 'somewhere else'. Something to consider next time you're charging up your airtime minutes. Don't be a digital airhead.
I drive while using my cell phone, not often, because I don't need to. When I do I use a headset, and when I need to dial, I use the voice dial. When I have a phone conversation while driving, both hands are on the wheel. I see no functional difference between that activity, and having a conversation with a passenger in the car. Life is full of distractions, but I really don't want to give up all human contact while driving.
Regardless, I do get your point; and think that a bit of narcissism is in play here. I figure that people who have to have the phone pasted to their head 24/7, are either enamored of their own wit or in need of a boatload of validation. Either way, if the cell fries a few Broca's neurons, they may be better off.
My pet peeve, parents neglecting their children's immediate needs, while gossiping in line at the supermarket...a whole generation of children whose pathology will be attributed to digital abandonment.
http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Jama_2011-305-8-_828-829_Radiaciones_electromagneticas_EDITORIAL.pdf
Worth reading.
Now I believe that if a minimal amount of radiation is the cost of a modern society then it cell-phones should be welcomed.
However the 'minimal' amount of radiation from a naked-body scanner at the airports by the TSA is unnecessary, doesn't guarantee our safety and is an un-necessary cost for modern society.
Millions of people use cell phones everyday but you have a bigger chance dying from falling down the stairs then a terrorist attack.
My only beef with cell phone companies is stop with the 5 gig limits, break up your monopolies if you don't have enough capital to expand coverage and the infrastructure should be handed back to the government since it's initial investments were paid for by taxpayers.
Cell phones manufactures should also locate a warning label on the device that alerts the user to possible effects from long-term exposure; just like cigarrettes.
THAN a terrorist attack, not THEN a terrorist attack. Sorry! It's a pet peeve of mine.
The jury was pretty much in on the dangers of using tobacco when the labels went on the packages. I think warnings on cell phones is a bit premature since there is no evidence of harm from cell phones.
A notable difference.
There is no good scientific evidence linking cell phones to cancer at all. If you are really that concerned about electromagnetic radiation, you really should rid your house of all electronic appliances, not just cell phones.
quit alcohol in the 1980's,along with driving.I stopped pain killers when
my pain stopped.Saw my last Charlie Sheen movie in 1991,
so what might I expect in my all natural and glorious i-future????
http://www.hearinglossweb.com/Medical/Causes/clacn.htm
The largest studies find no correlation between cell phone use and getting tumors or cancer. As alluded to in the article, in 2006, when cell phones still cranked out more amps than today, scientists found nothing when they tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users - including 52,000 users who have used cell phones for 10 or more years. The 2008 meta-analysis that found no link included 9 case-control studies with ~5,300 tumor patients, but the 2009 meta-analysis that found a possible link included 23 case-control studies (including studies excluded by the 2008 meta-analysis) with ~12,300 tumor patients. Both studies excluded the Danish results.
Of course, radio waves coming from a cell phone can increase the molecular energy in cells in the vicinity, and increase glucose consumption in cells in the vicinity it seems. But the radio waves and infrared heat generated by a phone simply do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds in DNA strands and cause mutations. There is no evidence that slightly warmer cells have an increase in mutations, thank goodness.