Scrap Cell Phones: Your Brain Will Thank You

Some people are simply more reactive, whether they pay attention to this or not. I am & do: no cellphones for me, the odd occasion on which I've been handed one I could not discount the odd sensation around the ear. A chatty fellow, whose acquaintance not long ago I renewed, bade me speak loudly to him as he'd developed some kind of ear canal tumour. It was the ear to which he habitually held his cell phone. He had not even made the connexion. Swedish researchers have been at the forefront in studying such "bioeffects". The results of their & others' longer term studies will likely not be easily welcomed by the cell phone industry. There do exist various self-protective measures one can take if cell phone use will be continued.

Scrutinize carefully the true extent of one's apparent "need" for such things, a good exercise to extend to a whole host of other damaging activities taken for granted. It's all akin to addiction. There are viable alternatives for most everything too destructive that we do.

And correlation not only does not rule out "causation", it can be said to be its basis. Neither is it merely "personal" how one cares for one's health.

Two billion mobile users worldwide spent 5.6 trillion minutes on their cell phones in 2005 – and by 2010 the world’s predicted 2.5 billion mobile users will be talking for 12.6 trillion minutes on cells, according to Strategy Analytics. With almost 40% of the world’s population using cellular devices within five years, you’d think that the health impacts of cellular radiation would be a hot topic, but the industry doesn’t want to talk about it.

Now I’m not a rocket scientist, but sticking a radiation device next to my brain for over 600 minutes every month – (207 million US users talked for 1.7 trillion minutes in ’05) – has got to have a health impact. Health care studies around the world have pointed to increased risk of brain tumours, cancers, and genetic damage:

• Children shouldn’t use cell phones, warned Sir William Stewart, chair of the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones studying mobile health risks, in January 2005. The brains of developing children may be more susceptible to radiation and today’s children will be using mobile phones for longer over their lifetimes.

• Lennart Hardell, professor of oncology at Orebro University, Sweden, found that mobile users were 2½ times more likely to have a temporal brain tumor where they held their phone; while risk of auditory nerve tumors increased more than three times.

• DNA in the brain cells of rats was damaged after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered “safe” by government standards, in a study by Dr. Henry Lai and University of Washington colleague N.P. Singh in 1995.

• In December 2004 the REFLEX study – a European effort involving 12 research groups in seven countries over four years, found mobile phone radiation damaged cells and DNA, caused mutations – and the damage carried on in subsequent generations of cells.

• The DNA in mice sperm was damaged when exposed to 900 megahertz electromagnetic radiation – a similar frequency emitted by mobile phones, according to a 2005 study by John Aitken, an expert in male reproduction at University of Newcastle in Australia.

The mobile industry is quick to note that the research on the biological effect of cell radiation is not conclusive. But Dr. Henry Lai responds by pointing out that of the 326 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone-related radiation up to July 2006, 56% show cell radiation has a biological impact while 44% suggest the opposite. But analyzing who sponsored the research reveals a very different story: 67% of the independent research indicated biological effects of mobile radiation. For research funded by the cell phone industry, it’s the opposite – only 28% of the studies show effects. With mobile industry revenues of $US570 billion in 2005 – the industry has a big financial incentive to downplay risks and is reminiscent of big tobacco’s decades long concerted campaign suggesting the evidence that smoking caused cancer was inconclusive.

Some researchers have suggested that 10 years or more are needed to conduct studies to conclusively determine long-term health impacts. Given that it was only in 2000 that the majority of cell phones shifted to digital from analog, by the time we know “conclusively” the impacts, it won’t help those who have brain tumours. So we need to adopt the precautionary principle.

Fact: Here’s what we know for certain: radiation intensity required decreases exponentially with the shorter the distance a signal must travel. While a cell phone has to be powerful enough to reach a cell tower 3,000 feet away, a Bluetooth wireless headset only has to reach the cell phone up to 30 feet away. In this scenario the Bluetooth headset needs less than 1% of the power the mobile has to emit. So by using a Bluetooth headset you can reduce your radiation to your brain by up to 99%.

Given this I tested three Bluetooth headsets: The Jabra JX10 weighs only 10 grams (1/3 of an ounce) and is less than 1.5 inches long. You can talk on this tiny stylish piece for 6 hours and it will operate in standby for 200 hours. (see photo)

Jabra advertises the BT500 as the bestselling Bluetooth headset worldwide – it weighs 2/3rds of an ounce; fits behind the ear, and offers 8 hours of operation and 240 of standby.

Motorola H700 is a third set I looked at that weighs 14 grams, offers 6 hours of talk time and 130 of standby. The boom on the H700 opens and closes turning the device on and off. All three devices were fantastic.

What Else You Can Do
• Only use a landline when possible, and when at home or the office, always call forward your mobile to your landline;

• Seriously limit the amount of time children and teenagers spend on cell phones.

• Keep your mobile away from your groin;

Rather than deny the potential negative health impacts, the industry should embrace the precautionary principle and include a Bluetooth wireless headset with every mobile sold.

Drina: thanks for raising this important issue!

First, let's acknowledge that there are two major types of technology in Canada that have very different affects on human health: GSM (Rogers), CDMA (Telus, Bell).

GSM technology emits radiation at 10 times the level of CDMA. Also, CDMA powers down the cell device when it is not in use so that it barely emits at all.

So when we speak of the dangers of cell phones we need to be specific because there are varying levels of radiation that vary from technology to technology and device to device. In any case, even GSM is considered to emit well within acceptable limits.

I might also point out that Health Canada has issued this report: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/prod/cell_e.html.

Real health concerns need to be addressed but in order to consider something a legitimate health concern there must be quantifiable data - otherwise we are engaging in baseless hysteria.

I should also point out that I work for a cell phone company. Prior to accepting the position I did educate myself on the potential dangers of cell phones because I wanted my work to be meaningful. I will say this: if you are going to use a cell phone and drive buy a hands free headset. Driving while using a cell phone IS a legitimate safety concern.

Stephen R. Feltmate

Because if not, we are the lab rats. And, by the time the results are 'conclusive,' many people have suffered or died. That's the reason for the precautionary principle, but it seems that several people on this thread do not agree with the idea.

We should not assume that new new technology is harmless until proven otherwise by an unignorable body count; that is foolish. Things get more complicated because of two additional factors:

* Manufacturers can claim that each generation of product is 'new' - exposure to 2.4 GHz is not the same as 900 MHz, for example - and therefore any illness or deaths that might be attributed to the previous generation cannot be counted against this one. Technological innovation is so fast that there is never a provable causation.
* As technological innovation races ahead in many different fields, none of which applies the precautionary principle, it becomes impossible to 'prove' what caused what to whom. Was it the cellphone? Agricultural pesticides? Air pollution? An exposure to something years ago? Genetic predisposition? Bad luck?

My own conclusion is that if we didn't evolve with it, it's more likely harmful than helpful. This has proven true in case-after-case, so I fail to see why I should trust claims that any particular new product is different. That said, I do use a cell phone. Sparingly.

Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada

Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth

People - Planet - Prosperity

see very recent germane piece by responsible author, Stan Cox:
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/58354/