Cell / Cordless Phone Radiation In The News

Verizon Wireless Cites: British Dept. of Health, June 2001: Parents who wish to Reduce their children’s RF exposure may choose to restrict their wireless phone use.

Senate Business and Professions Committee April 24, 2000: Senator Hayden presents actual photos of Radiation entering an Adult Brain, as well as the Brain of a 5-year old child: The depth of penetration is markedly more in the child than the adult.  Proving radiation from cell phones penetrates the human brain.

Actual Thermal Images:

Adult          10 Years          5 Years

MSNBC News December 15th 2000: Pathologist George Carlo Director of the most in-depth study into the health risks of cellular phone use found there is strong evidence cellular radiation can cause Genetic Damage to DNA leading to tumors and breakdowns in the immune system.

CNN November 2nd 2001: Fresh Doubts Over The Safety Of Headsets.

CBS News July 13th, 2000: Reports that University of Washington’s Dr. Henry Lai who led a study of the potential dangers of cellular phones said he does not believe they are safe at this time. The study found the same kind of radiation emitted by cell phones caused long term memory loss in rats. 

CBS News June 1999: CBS news correspondent Sandra Hughes reported on the dangers of cell phone use that David Reynard, a widowed businessman from Florida lost his wife to a brain tumor that he believed was caused by her cell phone. She had a tumor the size of a golf ball on the side of her head.  

The Stewart Commission May 2000: Last May, a blue-ribbon scientific panel convened by the British government urged that children be discouraged from using cell phones and companies stop marketing to kids. Oxford University professor Colin Blakemore, a widely respected expert on brain development stated, since a child’s head is small, it is more vulnerable to radio frequencies than an adult’s. And since a childs skull is thinner, it is less resistant to radiation penetration. Blakemore served on the panel and supports its cautionary conclusion.

BBC News Nov, 1998:  Reports that radiation from cell phones can severely damage the human immune system. Biologist Roger Coghill has long campaigned for health warnings to be attached to mobile phones, which he has already linked to headaches and memory loss. His latest research suggests the microwaves generated by mobile phones may damage the white blood cells that act as the “policeman” of the body, fighting off infection and disease.

Reported in the same BBC article was the claim made by researcher Alisdair Phillips, during a legal hearing brought by scientist Roger Coghill, he has "received frequent reports from regular cell phone users telling of headaches, loss of concentration, skin tingling or burning and uncontrollable twitching."

Microwave News March/April 2000: The editor of Microwave News, an industry publication, says consumers should be outraged! "Basically, the industry has NOT honored its commitment to the American public to get to the bottom of this." Louis Slesin says, "even if it's a small risk, we're talking on a societal basis, a very large problem."

United States Food and Drug Administration:  Admits cell phones emit radiation, which can lead to biological damage. 

Daily Mail May 14th 1999: New mobile phone fears as users are told to cut down their call in light of cancer alert. 

Irish Times May 1999 Headline: "Mobile phones linked to Brain Tumors." Both Eircell and Esat Digiphone, who between them, supply mobile phone service to almost one million Irish users, have declined to comment on the latest research linking mobile phone usage to brain tumors. This, despite scientists in the U.S. and Sweden calling for the introduction of explicit health warnings and recommending reduced usage.

Prime Time Report November 2000: Walt Disney Company in response to a Prime Time Report, in which scientists criticize the cell phone industry for marketing cell phones to children at a time when their are gaps in knowledge about cell phone safety. The Walt Disney Company disclosed yesterday that it will stop licensing its cartoon characters for cell phones. John Singh, spokesperson for Disney Consumer Products said, "Because the well being of our customers is our priority, we have decided to discontinue licensing until there is reliable evidence establishing the absence of any risk."

Q:

In what ways can cellular phones affect your health?

A:

The most frequently reported symptoms made by users to both their doctors and also to phone manufacturers, is the occurrence of unexplained headaches, ear and eye sight problems, feelings of nausea or dizziness, a tingling sensation on the skin and a numbness or redness to the face and neck. Consumer health concern TV programs in Australia and the UK recently featured numerous reports from users complaining of similar symptoms without the programs having given any prior indication of the nature of such complaints. A leading Swedish scientist, Professor Mild who is on the European Commission panel of experts investigating mobile phones, has just released the world's biggest study of mobile phone users and health effects and confirms frequent reports of such conditions as does Dr Bruce Hocking, the former Chief Medical Officer of a leading Australian cellular network operator.

The UK's National Radiological Protection Board confirms significant absorption of microwave energy in the eyes and their sockets, brain, nose, tongue and surrounding muscles. A senior adviser to the NRPB has been reported in the British press as saying "It is not unreasonable to suggest this might cause some damage." The worry is that these overt symptoms may be the precursor to more serious problems and that not all users are getting these early warning signals.

Q:

But I thought the problem was more serious than just headaches?

A:

Research funded by the New York Heart Research Foundation as early as 1992, showed that microwave radiation caused chemical changes in the brain similar to those present in cancerous and precancerous situations, which were still measurable more than 7 days after just one 3 minute phone call.

Independent research published in 1996 by Drs Lai and Singh of Washington State University, found an increase in single and double-strand DNA breakage's in rats brain cells. An accumulation of DNA breakage's have been associated with slow onset diseases such as cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntingdon's. Other independent published research has supported these findings, whilst cellular industry sponsored studies have not.

1996 experiments in Australia by a leading cancer specialist and Fellow of the Royal College of Radiation Biologists, revealed that existing cancerous cells could have their growth rate accelerated by a factor of up to 20 when exposed to microwave radiation at cellular phone frequencies. Once the exposure was withdrawn, the cell growth rate returned back to it's previous level.

1996 research carried out by the then current President of Australia's Cell Biologists, revealed permanent damage to glial brain cells which when cultured, repeated itself several generations away from the initial damaged cells. Other research observations include human mast cells changing shape in such a way as to indicate a connection with the possible promotion of asthma.

Cellular Industry sponsored research was quietly released in Australia in 1997 showing a more than doubling in the rate of cancer development in mice, following exposure to mobile phone radiation. The results had been held back from publication for two years, whilst it appeared the industry arranged for the downplaying of their significance. The same year saw the release of other studies implicating mobile phone type radiation with short term memory loss. Both the European Commission and the World health Organization have now announced 5 year research programs which will explore further the link with brain tumors and cancer. The UK's Department of Health have also just begun research into memory loss.

Q:

But the manufacturers and the Government say that the phones are safe?

A:

The official stance of the UK's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and other country's equivalent bodies, is that mobiles are safe as they comply with what many independent scientists believe are outdated and irrelevant recommended safety limits. These relate solely to biological effects caused by heating and any research suggesting non-thermal effects is dismissed as needing replication before they can be considered.

Continued safety assurances from the Government and the Cellular Industry are beginning to sound more and more like those heard about smoking, asbestos, thalidomide, Gulf war syndrome and BSE (Mad Cow Disease), to mention a few. Typically, medical research always lags behind technological advances and changes to safety standards in turn lag behind research. On this particular issue however, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest at least a recommended adoption of prudent avoidance measures. All the NRPB will admit is that some studies on animals have shown an association with cancer, but that much more research is needed and are happy to wait for absolute and definitive proof before acting. The NRPB is of course basically the same body whose exposure limit for x-rays of over 200 rem was considered safe in the 1950's, but whose limit today is only 3 rem, with the health of too many affected along the way.  All the NRPB will admit is that some studies on animals have shown an association with cancer, but that much more research is needed. In this regard they have just announced their own research program into the relationship between mobiles and brain cancer.

Mobile phone makers declare that there is absolutely no proof to suggest their product is unsafe and in Australia, the trade association representing the cellular industry (AMTA), constantly proclaims there is 40 years worth of studies to draw upon to validate their stance. Yet 1997 saw the launch by manufacturers of two supposedly "low" radiation phones and revelations that at least six mobile phone makers have radiation exposure reduction devices currently lodged at patent offices. Virtually all mobile handbooks contain a section on radiation, with one leading manufacturer suggesting that users wishing to reduce their exposure, should spend less time on the phone! These actions would appear to imply that not everyone in the cellular industry has bothered to read this supposed vast wealth of literature, to which AMTA refers.

Peter Russell of AMTA should also have told the WTR in the USA who will have spent $25m on a five year "research" program come 1999. The European Commission have just announced a $20m program because of the very lack of relevant research available on the subject. They should give Peter a ring, as they obviously aren't looking in the right places!

The fact is that exposure conditions for mobile phones are unique insofar as there is no other radiation emitting device in the world which you would press against the side of your head for long periods of time. The vast majority of research done on radio frequency exposure has been carried out in the far field and is therefore of no real relevance to mobile phone use. The limited amount of relevant research which has been done, has raised sufficient questions to warrant concern. Meanwhile the cellular industry is accused of continually refusing funding for scientist's whose studies look like they might reveal damaging conclusions.

Q:

Don't digital phones increase their power levels when they're being shielded? Even if a shield does work, surely it will stop the phone from working?

A:

The use of a Microshield radiation protection case with a mobile phone has been accused of causing the phone to power up in response to being shielded. This is indeed exactly what the Microshield does, but what observers of this phenomena fail to appreciate, is that in the course of a normal cellular phone call without a Microshield, the head itself has a shielding effect due it’s own natural ability to absorb radiation. According to cellular industry sponsored figures, as much as 80% of the total radiation emitted by a mobile is absorbed by the user’s head. The phone’s response to this is to increase it’s power level to maintain signal strength, which in turn exposes the head to a further dose of radiation. This powering up is harmless to the phone, as it will drop the call rather than do itself any damage by overpowering. There is however an additional drain on the phone’s battery as a result.

The Microshield case in effect, acts as a substitute for the head and absorbs the radiation which would otherwise penetrate into the user. This does of course cause the phone to increase it’s power level, just as the head does, but the Microshield’s attenuating capacity comfortably exceeds the maximum level of radiation a digital mobile phone could emit. Thus the increased radiation caused by this powering up process does not, contrary to the views expressed by some observers, leave the user open to further exposure. The maximum emissions from a GSM digital handset are around 35Db, whilst the Microshield’s shielding capacity is nearer 60Db. A simple analogy would be to think of a lift containing 3 people, where it’s capacity was say 12 persons. You would not expect the lift to fail, if at the next floor a further 3 people got on. To support this we refer to the tests which Microshield Industries PLC commissioned on the BABT GSM network simulator at Assessment Services. These were carried out with the phone fixed on it’s maximum power setting and thus the readings obtained for shielding effectiveness are worst case scenarios as far as emissions are concerned.

Other ill informed commentary has suggested that if such high shielding levels were being achieved then the phone will not operate. If this were the case, then the shielded readings in the test results could not have been obtained, as emission levels would have dropped to zero. As the BABT simulator tests quite clearly demonstrate, readings were taken and a call must therefore have been in place to achieve this. British Telecom have recently carried out their own tests incorporating the use of a salt water column to replicate the user’s head. Their results suggests that the Microshield selectively targets the radiation which would otherwise be absorbed into the user’s head, but leaves sufficient emissions in other directions to maintain call integrity. This observation explains how such high levels of shielding can be obtained whilst still allowing the phone to operate. Irrespective of any test results of course, is the testimony we continue to receive from users who report either a reduction or disappearance altogether of symptoms they experience from using their mobile.

One final observation has been that the Microshield will cause the battery to run down very quickly. This observation ignores the fact that there is already a draining effect created as a result of the phone’s powering up response caused by the shielding effect of the head. In fairness however, the shielding provided by the Microshield case with the aerial guard set in high shield mode, will indeed cause an additional extra drain on the life of the battery charge i.e. talk/standby time. This is because when set for high protection levels, the aerial guard is more efficient at absorbing radiation than the head, but remember that the guard is fully adjustable and shielding can be altered during a call to cater for signal strength fluctuations. When positioned in high shield mode, talk time reductions have been measured on average at 12%, but with today’s modern long life batteries this should not present a problem for the average user. A heavy user may find themselves recharging their battery slightly more often, but ironically it is these very users which research suggests are probably most in need of the shielding which the Microshield case affords.

Q:

But you will still be leaving the user open to some radiation exposure, even with a Microshield?

A:

That is correct. There certainly still will be a level of microwave exposure which is essential for the phone to operate. In this regard, it is a question of damage limitation. Much like sun-bathers who still go on sunshine holidays but use higher factor protection creams than before, or smokers who have changed to low-tar cigarettes, both groups are still exposing themselves to risks.

Q:

Are there any statistics yet available on the amount of people who have been effected by mobile phone usage?

A:

Epidemiological studies relating to possible long term health effects would normally only serve a purpose 10 to 20 years after initial exposure, but the accelerating effects of radio waves observed by many scientists may yield results much quicker for conditions such as brain tumors.

The first major survey by Dr Hanson Mild on overt symptoms experienced by users in Sweden, has just been released showing a significant correlation between phone use and the symptoms.

The European Commission and World Health Organization recently announced that their respective research programs would specifically include studies into the relationship between mobile phone use and the formation of brain tumors.

The UK’s NRPB has just announced it’s own similar epidemiological study which will look at the link between mobiles and brain cancer. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors has increased substantially in Europe and also in Australia. One specialist in Western Australia has conjectured that this could be due to the use of mobile phones. Others attribute the increase merely to improved scanning techniques.

Much more reliable and therefore worrying, are recent studies of Polish military personnel which have shown a massive increased incidence of leukemia in workers exposed to radio waves.

Microshield Industries have now logged over 3000 calls from users complaining of a range of symptoms to the head, identical to those also reported in Australia, USA and Scandinavia. These include tumor formations, all of which have been on the same side of the head and neck as the phone is held. This body of information is however classified by authorities as anecdotal evidence only and cannot be included for risk assessment or safety limit re-evaluation purposes.