The Cell Phone Brain Cancer Debate

If you don't want to have to read all the way to the end of this article to get to the punch line, here it is: No one is certain what cell phones do to our brains when we endlessly rest them against our heads. At best, it's nothing. At worst, it's insidious damage that will translate into an enormous spike in brain cancers down the road. If these are our two choices--status quo versus debilitating and ultimately fatal disease--why are we even talking about this anymore? It's time to move phones away from our heads.

I am not suggesting that we give up cell phones. Not at all. I am simply saying that we should acknowledge cell phone danger and stop holding them up to our brains. I am also not pointing a finger at cell phones alone. There are studies suggesting that cordless phones in the home may affect the brain in ways very similar to cell phones. This is because both cordless phones and cell phones have antennae and it is the antenna that seems to be at the root of the problem.

Two years ago, a group of two-dozen scientists and public health officials published The Bioinitiative Report. The group looked at more than 2000 studies published in scientific journals and argued that safety standards were both outdated and grossly insufficient. Within weeks, governments across the European Union were enacting new safety standards related to electromagnetic radiation and specifically non-ionizing radiation (which is the type that is emitted from your cell phone antenna).

In the US, we didn't hear a peep about The Bioinitiative Report.

Around the same time, World Health Organization (WHO) released a policy advisory about limiting exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic radiation. WHO, led by its International Agency for Research on Cancer branch, argued that there are clearly acute and likely chronic effects from this type of radiation.

Again, very little attention in the US.

Finally, a year later, the issue appeared in our own press. Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute, wrote a now somewhat famous memo to more than 3000 of his colleagues and staff outlining steps to safer cell phone use by minimizing time on the phone and, most importantly, increasing distance between the phone and your brain. But it was simply a news item and didn't seem to impact public policy or individual behavior.

Why does this debate keep falling on deaf ears in America? Because ultimately, it all comes down to our guiding legal principle: innocent until proven guilty. For every article about cell phones causing cancer, there's at least one saying the opposite. And with this volley in the press, we allow every yin to cancel out a yang. We insist that guilt be proven before we change our behavior because we desperately want our cell phones to be safe--we have already used them for so long that we don't want to think about the potential impact. Not to mention that it is so darned convenient to just hold the phone up to your ear instead of fussing with an ear piece cord that always seems to be tangled or trying to have a conversation on speakerphone while walking down a crowded sidewalk. The scales have tipped, though, and we cannot continue to ignore the mounting evidence.

As a doctor, I find it unbelievably--almost unbearably--ironic that the health and safety standards for prescription drugs are so different from those for emerging technologies. A new medicine must be proven to be safe. It cannot go out onto the market until it has been run through several levels of testing in the laboratory, in animal populations, and lastly in humans. The burden is placed upon the pharmaceutical company developing a drug and then, when the drug is prescribed, the burden is shared with the prescribing doctor. The drug is guilty until proven innocent. It is dangerous, toxic, rife with side effects until it is proven not to be. In fact, even if a drug is found to not have any negative effects, it is tested and retested until someone identifies a dose that does cause a problem. Guilty. Drugs are always guilty until proven innocent.

I don't have a problem with this system. The FDA has got it right. But cell phones should also be treated like drugs. When a piece of technology stirs up enough controversy to be covered regularly in medical journals and newspapers alike, the standard should be applied.

Besides, if you have any doubt whether cell phones are drugs, consider the following. They are addictive: try not using one for a week--you'll almost certainly have withdrawal symptoms. Cell phones can cause confusion or impaired motor skills: there are 330,000 motor vehicle accidents per year and 2,600 fatalities as a direct result of using cell phones while driving--and that doesn't include the havoc caused by drivers who text or dial while driving. Cell phones also have a variety of biological effects: people become elated or agitated while talking on them.

Ultimately, the research must continue to determine whether or not non-ionizing radiation emitted from phone antennae causes brain cancers. But everyone agrees that when the endpoint is a cancer that can take decades to form, we are talking about waiting 20 or 30 years for an answer. That's unacceptable, especially with lives on the line. So let's turn this around, call them guilty until proven innocent, and continue the trial.

Meanwhile, keep using your phone, but plug in your wired earpiece and go back to corded phones at home.

 

Comments

[Lesscancer]

Dr. Herberman's memo was not simply a news item but rather did create some long overdue attention nationally, including a congressional hearing that in turn generated action from several agencies world wide.

Dr. Herberman's call to action, advising precaution, was based on the fact that a lack of sufficient scientific evidence does not translate to safe.

A smart practice to subscribe to when we work towards a world of Less Cancer.

Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer

[Lesscancer]

Dr. Herbeman's memo was not simply a news item but rather did create some long overdue attention nationally, including a congressional hearing that in turn generated action from several agencies world wide.

Dr. Herberman's call to action, advising precaution, was based on the fact that a lack of sufficient scientific evidence does not translate to safe.

A smart practice to subscribe to when we work towards a world of Less Cancer.

Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer

[Dave Schock]

the scientists who are being proved right on cell phones by the new WHO report are also warning against cell towers, positioned by federal law without local oversight allowed, that are near residences and schools and so on. People near these are exposed 24/7, without their consent--though heavily criticized, nearly every study on health of those living near base stations show increased health problems---if this is correct, it is like having a federal law that says millions of american must be exposed to harmful radiation 24/7. Many countries have emission level allowances hundreds of times lower than the US standard, incl China. Maybe thats why they are kicking our butts---they are not all being radiation poisoned!!

The 1996 federal telecommunications law is unconstitutional and potentially deeply threatening to millions of Americans--please write your Senaotor and Congressmen to end it

[CanAmFam]

Good point Dave.

The blatant corporate-interest irony in proximity to cell towers affecting health is that you cannot legally object to their placement based on... you guessed it... health concerns!

Sadly as I understand it, the telco lobby is currently pushing to reduce local rights beyond the Telco Act of 1996 - so that local zoning and communities have no impact on tower placement whatsoever.

[gardengranny]

My sister died of brain cancer many years ago - she had used one of the old clunky "bag" phones and would talk on it for hours.

But I know several other people who never used cell phones of any kind, and who also died of the same kind of tumor that killed my sister.

[RichCameron]

There is no doubt in my mind that cell phone radiation in dangerous, but my biggest concern is that everybody keeps looking at cell phones but the biggest potential problem is DECT cordless phones. I bet you were not aware that they are transmitting pulsed microwave radiation 24/7 even if a call is not being made. This is because the original specification called for constant communication between the base stations and all the handsets. This failing has already been addressed in some parts of Europe with the introduction of Low Radiation DECT phones. The only problem is that the industry is hiding its head under a stone and keeping it quiet.

[David Ehm]

There are those who have dismissed the cancer connection and it doesn't matter if there is one article that says yes and one that says no. If one looks at the studies and does the math there are 3 studies that confirm some kind of cell alteration, DNA damage or potential cancer connection for every one that gives the cell phone (and users) the much hoped for reprieve. In other words, the studies are 3 to 1 that there is some kind of health risk with cell phones. There are brain surgeons and scientists that say we are facing a health debacle that will make tobacco and asbestos pale in comparison-- especially for users who are under 20 years old who are susceptible to 50% more exposure to radiation. Many will insist that this kind of radiation is too weak to do any damage however some studies show that certain very low frequencies are more damaging than higher frequencies and there is no safe threshold. What does this mean with the electric companies installing smart meters and every appliance and toy and communication device being wireless now? How many of you either have an autoimmune disease or know someone who does? Keep your phone in your pocket? Lowered sperm counts have been confirmed. For more information check out http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com get rid of your cell phones, wi fi, etc.

[AKSag]

I read an interesting article in the Skeptical Inquirer about this very topic. Here's a quote specific to cell phones:

The wavelength of radio frequency from a cell phone is about 30cm. It is not reasonable to expect a medium such as a human body to act as a focusing lens for waves of such dimensions emanating from a point source. The diverging rays from the mobile phone have to somehow be converted into a convergent beam. Even then the powers involved are too small for any meaningful number of photons to converge and then heat the localized region to trigger cancer formation.

Here's the entire article (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/power_line_panic_and_mobile_mania/). This article tries to dumb down quantum physics for us laypeople. I certainly may have missed something as I am scientific­ally-chall­enged, but it seems that cell phones are harmless - at least the actual phone (not so much the behaviors associated with the use of one).

At any rate, always good to keep the conversation going, especially if there is new info.

[CanAmFam]

@AKSag, regarding the statement "the powers involved are too small for any meaningful number of photons to converge and then heat the localized region to trigger cancer formation," it sounds like they are referring to thermal radiation, similar to what happens in a microwave. Cell phones are not allowed to cause thermal heating; the danger in question is long-term exposure to non-thermal radiation, where there are other dangerous biological effects.

I would recommend a perusal of the 2,000 studies in the Bioinitiative Report referred to in the article, which provides independent (non-telecom industry-funded) scientific evidence of damage: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

[mick7191]

What ever happened to antennas on cell phones. When the cancer allegation first came about, they started making phones that had antennas that pointed away from the head at an angle. I don't understand why they quit making them.

[UltimateLifestyle]

Great article, but don't you think it is the CONVERSATION itself, rather than the cellphone which causes the user to become elated or agitated?

[cinemaven]

I have weird problems with cordless phones and cell phones... after a few weeks of use, the phones just start giving static and are rendered useless by everyone. (I also can't wear watches.. they stop being useful after only a few weeks and either stop, run too slow/fast) I suppose that makes me lucky. We have only old fashioned corded phones in our house and I don't have a cell. I lost my mom to brain cancer so I know painfully well that it's not a pleasant prospect and I, like you, don't understand why people don't demand that we be safe rather than sorry, especially when no one is trying to take the technology away, just adjust how it's heard.

[skatoolaki]

How interesting - I have a similar problem! I can't wear watches (I run the batteries down within a few days) and I set off alarms and have electronic equipment go wacky on me all the time.

Any idea why we have such an odd - whatever it is? Frequency, energy, I'm not really sure? I never could quite finger it.

[skatoolaki]

Dr. Natterson - could you please provide the source for the information on cell phone-related car accidents and deaths? I am doing a piece on this very subject and would like to include this information.

Thank you for this important piece. Quite awhile back I'd read something about cell phones possibly causing cancer, and then heard nothing else. I've wondered about it ever since.