2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

145 lines
8.2 KiB
Plaintext

IS CELLULAR DOOMED?
by Ira Brodsky
As published in Pen Magazine, Issue 12, Mar/Apr 1993. Entire contents (c) 1993 by PenWorld, Inc.
Recent reports linking the use of portable cellular telephones
with brain tumors have created anxiety among users, manufacturers,
and service providers. Is the wireless revolution about to come to a
screeching halt? Probably not.
In fact, I suspect that the emotional stress produced by these
reports will prove more injurious to people's health than the
(allegedly) offending electromagnetic waves.
What are the facts? There are ten million cellular telephone
subscribers in the US. Perhaps as many as two million own portable
phones. Two cases of brain tumors have been reported. Of course,
additional cases may be disclosed in the next few months.
11,800 people in the US are expected to die from brain cancer
this year; 146,000 are expected to die from lung cancer. We can
expect 84 portable cellular telephone users to die from brain cancer
this year even if it is proven that there is no connection between the
use of portable cellular telephones and getting brain cancer.
We also know that the number and scope of studies in this field
have been inadequate. While there have been many studies
regarding the potential health hazards or physiological effects of
radio frequency energy, few if any have been modeled after portable
cellular telephone's frequency (800 mHz band), power level
(maximum: 600 milliWatts), and proximity between antenna and
living tissue.
To my knowledge, the only proven physiological effect of
microwave radio is heating. (The 800 mHz cellular telephone band,
however, is well below the microwave oven band which is located at
2400 mHz). It has been suggested that microwave energy could
have other effects, particularly on cell membrane function, but I
don't believe this has been proven.
One scientist, physiologist Stephen Cleary of the Medical College
of Virginia, conducted a study showing that the growth of cancerous
cells is accelerated when exposed to radio waves. But even Cleary
says he doesn't believe portable cellular phones cause cancer.
The gap between a statistical correlation and proof of cause and
effect is a longstanding problem faced by all scientific researchers.
At this point, not enough brain tumor cases have been reported to
even raise a statistical red flag. For all we know, the incidence of
brain cancer among portable cellular telephone users is lower than
among the population at large. If this turns out to be the case, it
would make just as much sense to purchase a portable cellular
telephone to help prevent brain cancer...
Another thing wrong with this episode: if cellular radio waves
pose a health hazard then the risk should increase with exposure
(power level, daily usage, and number of years used), services
adjacent to cellular telephone's frequency band should run similar
risks: specialized mobile radio (SMR), private two-way radio, and the
upper UHF-TV channels. Why have we not heard from these
quarters? The signals emitted from TV transmitters (decades of use)
are thousands of times stronger than those emitted from portable
cellular telephones.
Health Hazards & The Wireless Industry
A big part of this dilemma hinges on perception. People are
quicker to object to risks they feel they have been subjected to
involuntarily. Like the video display terminal (VDT), wireless LANs
and PBXs could become a new center of controversy for office
workers. But it's my impression that most portable cellular
telephone customers use their phones voluntarily.
The wireless industry needs to get on top of the safety issue.
Credable studies must be commissioned and the results must be
publicly disclosed. Once a link between specific wireless products
and health hazards is even hinted at, the industry finds itself in the
unenviable position of trying to prove a negative. The fact that
researchers are having a hard time proving that low power radio
signals pose a health hazard doesn't make it any easier to prove that
they do not.
I suggest this "Industry Action Plan." First, data should be
compiled on the number of cases expected in each related market
based on the background rate of illnesses that might be linked to
environmental causes. Second, the public needs to be made more
fully aware of the types of electromagnetic radiation to which our
bodies are already exposed-and how long this exposure has been
going on. Third, we need to catalog the various studies that have
been, or are being, conducted. Fourth, existing standards for
maximum exposure should be publicized; most people are not aware
that the power output of portable cellular telephones is already
subject to safety restrictions. And finally, studies must be
commissioned to fill in knowledge gaps in those areas likely to be of
concern to the public.
As for the emerging personal communications industry, the
maximum power output of handheld personal communicators and
personal digital assistants will generally be lower that that of
portable cellular phones. Therefore, the risks will be lower.
Wireless manufacturers have no excuse for being caught off
guard by the brain tumor scare. This episode was foreseeable.
Nevertheless, cellular telephone use will continue much as before.
The fact is that people are willing to accept small risks as long as
they know they have a choice.
About The Author: Ira Brodsky is President of Wilmette, Illinois-
based Datacomm Research Company, a market research firm
specializing in emerging wireless communications. Brodsky is
Chairman of Wireless User '93 Conference & Exposition which will be
held March 29 - April 1, 1993 at Walt Disney World Village near
Orlando, Florida. Readers can reach Dr. Wireless via radio at his
Internet address: <brodsky@radiomail.net>.
___________________________________________________________
Who Started This?
On Thursday, January 21, 1993, a group of guests on CNN's
Larry King Live, claimed that they contracted brain cancer from their
hand-held cellular phones.
This group based their claims on the warnings issued in
manuals accompanying cellular phones. For instance, the manual for
the NEC P201 portable phone, which one of the guests used, cautions:
"Radio Frequency Injury. Your phone is a power transmitting device.
When the phone is in use, radio frequency with a power output level
ranging from 0.6 to 3.0 watts of radio frequency energy radiates
from the antenna. Avoid direct contact with the phone antenna
and/or direct exposure to the radio frequency energy radiated from
the antenna at high-level radiation periods.
How can you avoid contact with the antenna when it's right by
your ear? Furthermore, how do you avoid exposure with radiowaves
which you cannot detect? Hence the controversey. What is or was
really meant by the "caution" placed on packages by manufacturers?
Although NEC (named in one suit) declined to comment,
Motorola's Senior Vice President said that their warning was only for
the car phone antenna, which one wouldn't be close to, and it was
only because of the heat generated during operation that the
warning is listed.
Dr. Mays Swycord of the FDA has stated that studies indicate
that cellular phone radio waves accelerate cancer growth, but do not
cause the disease. And Dr. Thomas Stanley of the FCC issued a
statement reassuring the public that devices using less than 0.7
watts of power are considered safe by the government. Cellular
phones use only 0.63 watts.
Relax, you probably have nothing to worry about.
___________________________________________________________
If you want to keep-up with the fast-paced world of pens, PDAs,
Communicators and related technologies, subscribe to 'PEN: The
Magazine of Pen-based Computing' and save $$$.
12 issues: $36 U.S., $44 Canada/Mexico, $62.50 Int'l Airmail
Money-Back Guarantee. Mastercard/Visa Accepted.
Call 800/ 383-PENS, fax 310/ 377-8218, or email 71333,124