Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Cell phones: Feds probing health impacts
A+ A- Text Size

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: September 14, 2009

For cell phone users – all 4 billion worldwide – a Senate hearing today elicited some observations that should give pause. Such as that the risk of certain brain tumors may increase among people who have been heavy cell-phone users for a decade or more. Or that the type of radiation emitted by cell phones can, at least in cellular studies, damage DNA. Or that children have become major users of cell phones and that the radiation emitted by those devices penetrates further into their brains than into their parents’.

To date, most studies on cell-phone health effects have emerged from studies conducted overseas. Where have American researchers been during all of this? Probing that was the first order of the day at this afternoon’s hearing before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell-phone radiation for carcinogenicity studies by a sister federal agency. That sibling – the National Toxicology Program (administered by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) – is now undertaking such tests, noted John Bucher, NTP’s associate director.

Today, he outlined the three-pronged attack by which NTP is investigating potential health hazards, including cancer, from cell-phone use.

“While the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any health problem,” he noted, “we and other scientific organizations believe better data are needed to establish any potential risks to humans from the low level radiofrequency radiation associated with their use.” Indeed, he noted, the ubiquity of cell phones today “could translate into a significant public health problem should their use even slightly increase the risk of adverse health effects.”
 
How many Americans converse wirelessly? Only some 270 million, he reported. And while some early studies that probed for harm found none, he said that “There’s been some hints, recently, that there is an increase in brain cancers in people who’ve used these cellular communication devices for a number of years.” As in 10 or more years.

During their questioning of Bucher, Sens. Tom Harkin (Dem.-Iowa) and Arlen Specter (Dem-Penn.), suggested the current federal research program investigating possible harm from cell-phone use appears anemic. Its funding needs bolstering, they suggested. It should focus more on human studies, they implied, and it should identify which studies had industry funding (presumably because such industry influence might have colored analyses of the data).
 
For his part, Bucher said research on the issue was moving ahead as well as might be expected, based on its limited funding. He described a host of federally financed programs now underway. Chief among them, new rodent studies at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. They're using 21 chambers, each the size of a walk-in closet, to expose unrestrained animals to cell-radiation frequencies for up to 20 hours a day and throughout periods of up to two years.

These big new cages are significant, he said, because most earlier, European studies exposed restrained animals and for only two hours a day. Research in other fields have shown that restraints can impose stress. So there’s reason to question whether responses to any radiofrequency radiation might have been affected by that stress.

For NTP’s new studies, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have helped design the rotating antenna system, provided within each shielded chamber, to generate statistically uniform fields in the frequency bands used by cell phones – either 900 or 1,900 megahertz.

Male and female mice and rats will get zapped – including pregnant animals – to evaluate impacts at all life stages from gestation through the rodents’ golden years, Bucher explained. Chronic toxicity tests will begin late next year, with peer-reviewed analyses of their findings expected by 2014.

Researchers at five universities are also getting federal funds to study potential environmental triggers – including cell-phone radiation – of meningiomas. Usually noncancerous, these tumors develop in membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. At the University of California, Los Angeles, other scientists are probing data from a study of more than 100,000 Danish children exposed to cell-phone radiation. Here, scientists are scouting for non-tumor effects, including seizures, migraines, sleep disturbances and behavioral problems.

Harkin, who chaired the hearing, observed that European researchers had taken the lead in studying human impacts of cell technologies, such as through their participation in a big INTERPHONE Study. Asked Harkin: Why wasn’t the United States a part of this huge trial looking for cell phone affects in children and adults?
 
Bucher said the National Cancer Institute has provided at least some INTERPHONE funding, so the U.S. research community has played a role. But Harkin pointed out that the United States was not among the list of 13 participating countries, suggesting that any U.S. role had been too insignificant to mention.
 
Specter probed the issue a little further, asking shouldn’t U.S. scientists undertake more human studies on this issue?

“I certainly would suggest that there should be studies on humans, yes,” Bucher replied. Wouldn’t that cost more than NIH has allocated for cell-phone studies? “I believe it would,” Bucher told the senator.

Could Bucher supply the subcommittee “a recommendation of what sort of studies you’d recommend for humans and what the cost would be?” The NTP official told Specter he could, but not on the spot. Fine, Specter said: “Do it as soon as you can.”

Some of us who are not experts on how cell signals are affected by environmental conditions might have learned something from the senators’ further questioning of Bucher. For instance, Specter said he’d been briefed that cell phones should not be used in elevators, subways, or other places where reception is weak or blocked. True, he asked?

Yes, Bucher responded, “because the power that is used to reach the cell base station is higher in those situations.” And even if the cell signal doesn’t get through, Bucher says, radiation exposures can still be elevated in these environments “because the cell phone is still attempting to reach the base station.” Bucher showed a little uncertainty in explaining all this, which Specter picked up on. So the senator asked Bucher in a rather emphatic tone to follow up and “give us a more definitive answer.”

Actually, the senators should have invited some of the engineers among Science News' readership to answer the latter questions, not someone trained as a biochemist and toxicologist. And presumably, at some later date, they will get radiofrequency gurus to testify. Both Harkin and Specter indicated that cell phones – and how to limit radiofrequency radiation exposures to users – was a topic they wished to pursue further.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. [Go to]

Comments (7)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • I have commented on these studies before. The rodent studies such as the one described are absolute rubbish. The reason is that they don't duplicate the conditions of an emitter held firmly next to the ear. The ear canal is a waveguide for the frequencies used. That means it will concentrate and direct it into the interior of the brain.

    Similarly, holding the emitter antenna next to the head will penetrate the skull, although exactly how is unknown. Nor do we know what the shape of the emission field is for different models of cell phone.

    In all cases, we know that lipids absorb this microwave frequency well. We know that. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    I am of the strong opinion that these studies are deliberately designed with the intent not to show a problem by using conditions that do not apply to the real world. Nobody serious thinks that the level of microwave radiation found in the environment because of cell phones is significant. And yet, over and over, that is what is tested. It's flatly ridiculous rubbish.
    John Toradze John Toradze
    Sep. 15, 2009 at 10:02am
  • Why does this story not even mention the real experts who testified: Dariusz Leszczynski and Siegal Sadetzki? They were both compelling (see it on C-SPAN). Devra Davis was strong too. Leszczynski said there should be more experiments on human that measure molecular changes, as he has done.

    The point someone should have made: you don't need increased DNA damage to get cancer, which is why HRT and steroid use can cause it. So it's plausible the observed cellular stress response, over 10+ years, could be the culprit.
    William Bruno William Bruno
    Sep. 15, 2009 at 1:12pm
  • WIRELESS COMMUNICATION IS CAUSING NOISE AND RADIATION POLLUTION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT EXPOSING ALL LIVING THINGS 24/7, NON STOP. CORPORATIONS AND VESTED INTERESTS ARE CONTROLLING OUR FATE.


    [Link was removed]

    Dr Robert O. Becker, M.D.
    twice nominated for Nobel Prize of this research.

    "I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest
    polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of
    electromagnetic fields.

    I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and
    the increase in chemical elements in the environment."

    JOIN THE GLOBAL RFR DEFENSE TEAM AND STOP THIS INSANITY. We must all do our part to stop this injustice. We need honest, common sense legislatures advocating for us.

    Email us at globalrfrdefenseteam@verizon.net
    Sandaura Chiantullo Sandaura Chiantullo
    Sep. 15, 2009 at 9:57pm
  • If we have gone from zero cell phones to 4 billion, surely there should be a clear signal of adverse effects in the Morbidity and Mortality reports by now. Or am I just a spoilsport.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 12:33am
  • Sadly, the politicians (John Bucher, NTP’s associate director) are either mis-informed, or untruthful. This issue is not a question in need of further study. For example: (Epidemiology 2004;15: 653–659)
    "Results: The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval (0.6 –1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9–4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6 –9.5).
    Conclusions: Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years’ duration."
    joseph park joseph park
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 7:48am
  • I would think that the evolving signal mechanisms for cell phones terribly confound these studies. Someone who has been using a cell phone for "over 10 years" was using much different spectra and signaling (ie, analog) 10 years ago than today (2G? Europe or USA? 3G?) And the commonly used frequency hopping techniques of today dramatically reduce the amount transmitted at any one frequency (that's the idea), so I would expect it to less biological effects (which I would expect to be tuned to specific frequencies for specific cellular activities). Of course, one is often surprised by the _actual_ results...
    Tom Brennan Tom Brennan
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 1:25pm
  • Very interesting and useful article for all people. Personally I think that there are more dangerous devices than cell phones in the world. For example microwaves or computers... In my opinion, if a cell phone would be really harmful for our health, the use of this device would be banned or restricted. Mobile phone is the main device which lets to communicate with each other so I can not imagine the world without cell phones. Anyway it is only my own opinion. Thanks a lot for the interesting entry and I will be waiting for other great ones from you in the future.

    Matt Simson Matt Simson
    Nov. 14, 2009 at 1:56pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us