Mobile Phone Radiation 3

8/6/2019 Mobile Phone Radiation 3

1/4

e l e c t r d n ) e g n e t i cRadiationThe following is an interview by freelance reporter Michael Fosburgwith Dr. George Carlo, Chairman ofthe Science and Public PolicyInstitute, a n on-profit public health group based in Washington, D.C.Dr. Carlo is recognized as one ofthe world's top experts on the healtheffects of electromagnetic radiation. He is the co-author, with MartinSchram, o/Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Ageand was the chiefscientist ofthe world's largest research effort intowireless safety.

MF: Dr. Carlo, wha t is the Science and PublicPolicy Ins titute, andwhat role does it play regarding the dangers o f cell phones?GC: We opened the institute in the early 1990s as a forum toaddress pub lic health issues where there was a clash between sci-ence and politics. Over the years, we have studied controve rsialproblems ranging from sil icone breast implants, to hazardouswaste sites and, more recently, mobile phone health risks. In2002, we established the Safe Wireless Initiative p roject, in itiallyto continue research into mobile phone dangers and, more spe-cifically, to monitor health problems among cell phone users.MF: Is the Safe Wireless Initiative program still in operation?CC: Yes. In fact, we now have more than 6,000 members andwe're growing every week. Our main focus is to provide infor-mation to consumers about the cell phone safety problem andhelpful solutions to that proble m. Our health concerns registry isthe onl y post-market surveil lance program in the world track inghealth problems amo ng cell phone users.M F: Shouldn't the government or the cell phone industrybe doing that tracking?CC : Yes, they shou ld. But while the m obile p hone ind ustry andgovernment regulatory agencies continue to maintain that thereis no evidence of increased disease among cell phone users,neither are monitoring these consumers for disease. No one islooking for problems or even counting, so how would they ever

gram I oversaw in the 1990s-research funded by the indusand overseen by a form al gov ernm ent interagency w orkgroupwe recommended that surveil lance of phone usersput in place as far back as 1998. But absolutely no consumprotec tion steps have been taken. I find that inexcusable.MF : Ho w can the government be so silent with so muchpublicity about cell phone dangers over the years?GC : The cell phone industry has effectively changed the focfrom public safety to politics, and they have used political prsure to keep the lid on the issue. The watch dogs in g overn mare not barking, and that has left the consumer unprotectThe Food and Drug Adm inis tratio n has inexplicably walked awfrom puttin g any regulatory contro l on cell phone comp anies. TEnvironmental Protection Agency had its radio frequency radtion budget cut to the point where they are no longer involvin the issue. Because ofthe flow of dollars associated with wless communicat ions, the Federal Communicat ions Commsion has openly become a financial partner with the industrydeploying the technology. In effect, m obile pho ne health risks not regulated in the U.S. Consumers are unknowingly on thown in term s of protec tion. The Safe Wireless In itiative providconsumers with a safety avenue.MF: How does the Safe Wireless Initiative workto help consumers?CC: Besides providing up-to-date consumer inform ation on


2/4

sure consumers are not being misled by businesses trying tocapitalize on disease fears. We have a dedicated, co nfidentialWeb sitewww.health-concerns.orgwhere we ask peoplewho believe that they have health problems related to their cellphones or other sources of electro-magnetic radiation to confi-dentially register their sy mptom s into the database so that we cancontinue the research. The information remains confidential sotheir identities are not comprom ised, but they will be helping otherpeople tremendously. W ith the strength o f numbers in the registry,it gives us a forum to influence federal and state legislators towardpolicy changes that will help solve the prob lem for everyone.M F: Here is a simple question that I have always wanted to ask.How do cell phones actually work?CC: The cell phone is really a radio that sends information sig-nals on waves to a base station sometimes several miles away.To cover the distance, the signal is pushed by a burst of powerwhich is the source ofthe radiation we are most concerned wi th .The farther the base station, the more power needed to carrythe signal; the more power, the more radiation generatedandthe greaterthedanger. Thus, the power bars on your phone giveyou an indication of how much radiation you are being exposedto during a call-the fewer number of bars, the greater amountof radiation.MF: With that being the case, can I protect myself by makingcalls shorter to reduce the radiation?CC: No t necessarily. The length of your call, or even the num berof calls you make for that matter, are not as important in termsof th e radiation as where you are when you m ake the call relativeto the base station. For example, there is no way to know whetherten one-m inute calls are better or worse than one ten-m inute callin terms of health risk. That makes it difficult because there areno easy behavior changes that solve the problem.M F: What does the radiation from a cell phone do to us?CC: First, we are concerned about dangers from two differenttypes of radiation associated with cell phones: the near-fieldradiation plume and a more subtle far-f ield contribution. Thenear-f ield plume penetrates your body about six inches fromthe center ofthe phone's antenna. If it 's against your head, itpenetrates your brain. If it 's on your waist, it penetrates theimportant blood-forming f lat bones of your hips. This plume islike a "bull in a china closet" and it overtakes all of our body'snatural defenses against this type of exposure. We now knowthat this near-f ield plume leads to t issue dysfunction such asleakage in the p rotective blood brain barrier and genetic damage,including interference with D N A repair. These biological effectslead to condit ions ranging from brain tumors to learning dif-ficulties in children.M F: Wh at about the other type of radiation that you mentione d,the far-field?CC: This field produces subtle effects for most people, but the

levels of electromagnetic radiation have increased dramaticallyoverthepastdecade, and cell phones are now a major contributoto that background load. The mechanism leading to the dangeis in terference with the human b iof ie ld^the sum tota l o f theenergies g enerated as part of ou r meta bolism . Our biofield is amajor determ inant o f overall health and wellness. The increasinglevel of environm ental electromagnetic radiation com petes withour own energies and produces a general compromise of ouphysiologic processes. Overt ime, this deterioration can leadto a host of symp tom s rang ing fro m hyperactivity and attention deficit behavior to lowered im mu ne response. Some peopleare extremely sensit ive to this type of radiation, and electrosensitivity prevalence is now on the rise around the world. Thisis a problem that will c ontinue to worsen over t ime .M F: So, overall, where do w e stand today with all of this?CC: After two decades of science, we know that serious healtrisks are associated with radiation em itted by mobile phones andother wireless devices. We are particularly concerned about braincancer, other tumors ofthe brain, eye cancer, genetic damagebrain ailmen ts, as well as behavioral and learning problem s. Chidren have become th e m ai nf oc us of ou r Safe Wireless Initiat ivbecause they begin using mobile telephones very early in lifeand they are showing unprecedented infatuation with the deviceresulting in excessive usage. All this while their growing tissueand organs are more susceptible to the type of damage that whave seen in the research. Consider that published epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users indicate that usage in thneighborhood of 500 minutes per month over about ten yearleads to a doubling in brain cancer risk. A study we conductedlast year in Buffalo, New York, showed average teenage usage inthe neighborhood of 2,600 minutes per monthmore than f ivtimes greater than the adults in the studies showing increasecancer risk. What will happen to these youn g people after a lifetime of use? No one knows exactly, but the predictions baseon today's data are dire.

M F: If this is such a big problem , how come everyoneisn't talking about it?CC: The big problem is that the telecommunications industrhas not only failed to heed in tervent ion recommendat ionthat would make the products safer, but has purposefully, aneffectively, sought to shape public perceptions about dangerby controll ing both the media and the output ofthe worldwidscientific research agenda. In some cases, the mobile telephonindustry has circulated false information to the news mediabout research findings. Furthermore, the industry has activesought partners such as the Disney Co rporation to facilitate saleto children, openly identifying the 8 to 12 year-old age group aa "target market," called the "tweeners". Thus, the "n e e d " fothe cell phone is established very early in life, and it becomealmost an addiction. This is scarily similar to addictive nicotinadded to cigarettes. This type of open d isregard for the safety oconsumers, especially young people, is grotesque.M F: But shouldn't the government be protecting consumer


3/4

Key Dates In the Evo lution of theCell Phone Health E ffects Issue 1983Cell phones were exempted from pre-market testing forhealth risks by U.S. governmen t regulators based on the assump-tion that the low power pushing the radio waves could not causeharm 1988the United States mi l i tary implements protect ion tech-nology for radio communications personnel based on classifiedresearch findings that include d work done by private sector wire-less industry companies. 1993David Reynard, on the "Larry King Live" show, presentsmedical evidence suggesting that his deceased wife's brain tum orwas the result of her cell phone use; his presentation promptedclaims by the cel i phone industry that " thousands of studies"proved cell phones were safe; when it became clear that therewere not studies directly relevant to cell phones, congressionalhear ings ensued; to avoid regulat ion, the cel l phone industrypledges what became $28 mill ion for research into dangers ofcell phones. 1995independent industry-funded research determines thatdigital cell phones interfere with implanted cardiac pacemakers,thus present ing a danger to wearers; industry distances i tsel ffrom findings and cuts off funding for further research 1996independent industry funded research resumes, but withl imited scope 1999independent research findings indicate genetic damagefro m cell phone exposures and increases in the risk of benign an dmal ignant brain tumors 2001publ icat ion of CellPhones: Inuisible Hazards in the Wire-less Age tr iggers the fi ling o f five class action lawsuits against cellphone companies 2002product l iabil ity insurance coverage for cell phone com-panies excludes protection against health risk claims; industryeffectively becomes self-insured 2004European Union REFLEX study resul ts released con-firming genetic dama ge and other findings of previous industryfunded research 2005U .S. Supreme Courtde cides that celi phone cases sho uldmove forward in state courts

ildren And Cell Phone RadiationGovernment Actions to ProtectChildren and Teenagers The Cerman Acaden^cel l phone use amo ng chi ldren; Th e Russian Radiation Protection Bureau has advised pregnantwom en and chi ldren under the age of 16 to avoid mobi le phoneuse altogether; Pariiamentary health officials in Creat Britain have twice urgedthe nat ion's wireless industry to refrain from promoting mobi lephone use in chi ldren and publ ic ly discourage chi ldren fromusing mobile phones for non-essential calls; Scandinavian health authorities have recomm ended that aJ! con-sum ers, especially children, should use whatever m eans poss ibleto reduce their exposure to mob i le phone radiat ion em issions; Health officials in /sroe/o/ i t^Austn't icont inueto recommend that

C C : Yes, they should. But while some governments arothe world have taken steps to protect citizens and consumthe actions have been slow and minimal because ofthe retance movement mo unted by the industry In the United Stanothing has been done for protection whatsoever. If you folthe money the reasons become clear. I n both the United Staand Europe, bil l ions of dollars are being collected by govements who sel l the te lecommunicat ions spectrum to the vate sector. Revenues collected from spectrum auctions in late 1990s and continuing tax revenues from consumer ushave put governments in a com prom ised posit io n: they havvested economic interest in the continued financial successthe wireless industry. Strong regulatory control to protect csumers is arguably coun terto government polit ical and f inaninterests.M F : Your words are not very comforting. What can yourecommend to those want ing to protect themselvesfrom these cell phone dangers?

GC: The most important step is for consumers to recognthat there is indeed a safety problem with cell phones, and tneither the wireless industry nor government regulatory bodare motivated to take the lead in offering protection. Thus, inviduals concerned about their safety need to take steps on thown. Through the Safe Wireless Initiative, we are trying to pvide information that will empower consumers toward safeBut, the problem is complicated and, as yet, there is no silbullet solution. That is why it is importan t for consum ers toaware of new and emerging findings that accrue protection.the same time, they must be aware that many products on market offering protection are bogus, and they mu st be in a potion to become educated about what works and what does nM F : So, what works?CC: The most effective primary preventive are the hands-fheadsets that effectively move the near-field radiation pluaway from the body thus signif icantly reducing exposurepersonally use an air-tube headsetfully wired headsets cact as an antenna, attracting ambient far-field radiation towthe head. The air tube lowers tha t risk. Phones equippe d wspeakerphones acc omplish the same primary pro tectio n, as loas the phone is kept more than six to eight inches away frthe body when being used. There is a noise f ield technolodeveloped jointly by scientists in the U.S. military and the privsector, that may soon be available to co nsum ers tha t effectiveliminates first stage biological effects triggered by both nefield and far-field radia tion. There are also secondary preventivthat compensate for biofield interference from general sourcof electromag netic radiatio n. These are available as after-maraccessories that can be attached to the phones themselvFinally consumers should remember that any steps they tato improve their health will help them fight the effects of theexposures.

More informa tion is available at: www .sppionline.org and wwsafewireless.org.


4/4

Documents

Mobile Phone Radiation 3