"Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness."
British scientists have claimed there is insufficient evidence to prove any link to mobiles.
But the respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis gave evidence for Mr Marcolini — along with neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso.
They said electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile and cordless phones can damage cells, making tumours more likely.
Prof Levis told The Sun: "The court decision is extremely important. It finally officially recognises the link.
"It'll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We're considering a class action."
Mr Marcolini's tumour was discovered in the trigeminal nerve — close to where the phone touched his head.
It is non-cancerous but threatened to kill him as it spread to the carotid artery, the major vessel carrying blood to his brain.
His face was left paralysed and he takes daily morphine for pain.
Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, which campaigns for more research on mobile use, said: "This is an interesting case and proves the need for more studies.
"People should limit mobile and cordless use until we know more."
The World Health Organisation urged limits on mobile use last year, calling them a Class B carcinogen.
But a spokesman for Britain's Health Protection Agency said: "The scientific consensus is that mobile phones do not cause cancer."
International radiation biology expert Michael Repacholi said: "Studies show no evidence of cancer. But if you are worried, use a headset, hands-free or loudspeaker."
Media lawyer Mark Stephens said the verdict could "open the floodgates" — even though there is no direct obligation on British courts to follow the Italians' lead.
He said: "It is possible people will begin legal action here, but I think the chances of success are less. I think they'll join any class action in Italy."
The article in full is below. You can also read it here.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and provide tips on how to reduce one’s risk from exposure.
PRLog - Aug. 13, 2014 - ATLANTA – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated the Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones and health on the CDC web site.
CDC now asserts that “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use.” As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to “reduce radio frequency radiation near your body.”
Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC’s lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.
Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC’s new position in light of the Commission’s obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.
CDC’s latest recommendations represent a considerable improvement in our Federal government’s position regarding cell phone radiation health risks and the need for precaution.
CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. Unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.
Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health
Most of us depend on cell phones every day. Some people wonder if cell phones can cause health problems. Here’s what you should know about cell phones and your health.
Can using a cell phone cause cancer?
There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer.
Do cell phones give off (emit) radiation?
Yes – cell phones and cordless phones use radiofrequency radiation (RF) to send signals. RF is different from other types of radiation (like x-rays) that we know can be harmful. We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.” (A carcinogen is an agent that causes cancer.)
Should people stop using cell phones?
Scientific studies are ongoing. Someday cellphones may be found to cause health problems we are not aware of at this time. However it is also important to consider the benefits of cell phones. They can be valuable in an urgent or emergency situation– and even save lives.
If you are worried about cell phone use, follow the tips below.
Cell phone tips
To reduce radio frequency radiation near your body:
• Get a hands-free headset that connects directly to your phone. • Use speaker-phone more often. • If you have a pacemaker, keep cell phones at least 8 inches away from it.
Do cell phones cause health problems in children?
It’s too soon to know for sure. Children who use cell phones – and continue to use them as they get older – are likely to be around RF for many years. If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future.
What research is being done to learn more about cell phones and health?
Scientists are continuing to study the possible health effects of cell phone use. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently looking into how cell phones may affect:
• Some types of tumors (a lump or growth) • Our eyes • Sleep • Memory • Headaches
In the News: Acoustic Neuroma
Scientists are looking into a possible link between cell phone use and certain types of tumor. One type is called an acoustic neuroma (“ah-COOS-tik nur-OH-ma”). This type of tumor grows on the nerve that connects the ear to the brain. It doesn’t cause cancer, but it may lead to other health problems, like hearing loss. Another type scientists are looking into is called a glioma (“glee-OH-ma”). This is a tumor found in the brain or central nervous system of the body.
Where can I get more information about cell phones and health?
For more information, visit:
The Federal Communications Commission World Health Organization The Food and Drug Administration
Page last reviewed: June 9, 2014 Page last updated: June 9, 2014 Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Here is an excellent collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools.
The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below. Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order. A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.
If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here and either print out this article to post or email the link.
Wi-Fi papers
1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825
2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)
4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077
5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408
6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629
9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130
10. Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079
11. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
12. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785
13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below) (this is not comprehensive):
17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445
21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of OncologyLibrary Vol. 5: 273-300 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647
30. Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839
31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631
34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor, Division of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Helsinki and a member of a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries constituted by World Health Organization (WHO) that classified cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic, in conversation with Maitri Porecha, reveals how leading cell phoneoperators and manufacturers are withdrawing funding for research, leading to closing down of laboratories studying effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as emitted by cellphones and cell towers. Excerpts -
1. How was cell phone radiation categorized as group 2B carcinogen, based on increasing risk of Glioma, a malignant type of brain Cancer by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO?
The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. With rising concerns over adverse health effects, in 2010, IARC invited thirty one experts to evaluate evidence involving carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The experts assembled at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, in a meeting that lasted for twelve days in 2011. Experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Groups worked separately and together sifting through many hundred research studies. After intense deliberations, we agreed upon the group 2B classification.
2. On one hand, cell tower operators and industry stake holders say that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer, on the other hand the residents or activists posit a precautionary stand point by saying that it may cause cancer. Why there is no clarity?
The IARC-WHO classification of cell phone radiation is misrepresented by the industry. Classification of cell phone radiation as 'a possible carcinogen to humans’ means that there are enough studies indicating that it might cause cancer and that we urgently need more research to clarify this issue. The strongest evidence that it might be causing cancer comes from three epidemiological studies. In 2011, two sets of studies were available – EU's Interphone study and a series of studies from Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden. Recently, CERENAT study from France published in 2014, similarly indicated that persons using cell phones for more than ten years and for half hour per day are at a higher risk for developing brain cancer. In fact now the evidence is sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.
3. Could you describe your work on cell phone radiation? Did you discover that it has ill effects on human health and if yes, in what way?
Our research has shown that human cells exposed in laboratory to cell phone radiation activated series of biochemical reactions in them known as 'stress response,' which means that the living cells recognize cell phone radiation as a potentially harmful agent. Stress responses are signals that intend to protect the living cell from any potential damage. In the 2008 study conducted by us, a small area of human forearm's skin in ten volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that, pieces of the radiation exposed skin and unexposed skin were collected and used for 'proteomic analysis.' In it, all proteins from the skin samples were extracted and amounts of different kinds of proteins in exposed and unexposed skin samples were compared. After the analysis of nearly 580 proteins, we identified eight proteins which were statistically significantly affected. We determined that the amounts of several proteins were changing after the exposure. After acquiring this result in the pilot ten-volunteer-study, we intended to conduct a larger study with 100 volunteers from 2009 onwards. This study did not start due to lack of funding and opposition from the telecom industry stakeholders.
4. Why did the government did not sanction funds? What happened?
My laboratory studies on effects of cell phone radiation to human health began in 1999. My lab, which was government-run, was closed down in 2013 due to lack of funding as certain cell phone manufacturers and network operators in Finland were opposing the large scale human studies. We receive grants from government to conduct studies but in spite of making positive headway on research our funding was stopped. We were cut off from funding as the telecom industry was against it. While majority of the funding for such research projects consists of tax payers money and industry pumps in only a part of the money, the advice of industry is highly valued during sanctioning of funds by the government.
5. How much funding was expended during the last 15 years and how much more funding would be required to require to bring your studies to a proper conclusion? I was working on cell phone radiation effects for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. My research group has expended over the 15 years period well over one million euros. Some persons in the Finnish bureaucracy decided that basic research should be done in universities and thus basic research labs in government-run institutes were closed in a bid to save money in 2013. The 2009 study was planned to last about three years and entailed enrolling 100 human volunteers. There was a very real possibility of securing such funding from the EU research program but my research group was not permitted to do it. In order to continue the abruptly stopped study on humans, we would require some quarter million euros in funding. Industry provides jobs for people and therefore research policy decisions are taken by the government are influenced by it. The industry denied funding. To conduct that kind of human volunteer study, qualified personnel, laboratory space and sufficient funding is needed, of which I have none currently.
6. Do you believe that the standards set by the Indian Telecommunications Ministry in September 2012 at 450 milliwatts/square meter (900MHz) for Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation which is one tenth of what is prescribed by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) enough when the government admitted in September 2012 that 95% of the mobile tower antennae were below the revised norms of 450 milliwatts/square meter radiation? Also, when most towers are well below those permissible limits, what is the logic behind Telecom ministry's bringing down the levels from 4500 mW/sq m to 450 mW/sq m? ICNIRP is an organization of scientists, claiming that they are independent in their scientific opinions. However, there is a major problem – ICNIRP selects members in fashion resembling “private club” practices. The current members of ICNIRP select new members. This model leads to situation where all ICNIRP members have the same opinion on the dangers of cell phone radiation. When all ICNIRP scientists have the same opinion there is no need for scientific debate – there is a prior, existing consensus. This was not the case in the WHO’s IARC evaluation, where scientists with diverse, often opposing opinions were invited.
ICNIRP safety standards for radiation emissions from cell phones and cell towers may not be sufficient to protect people. The IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen invalidates the protective claims of the current ICNIRP safety standards. In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by IARC (Interphone and Hardell) and published after IARC evaluation (CERENAT), adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfill ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such "ICNIRP-safe phones," for period of over 10 years, led to an increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and this also casts a doubt over the validity of safety standards set for cell towers.
Of what I have seen from the pictures of India, as also what I have seen while visiting India, there are numerous situations where there are too many antennas located en masse, in huge clusters. Whether such clusters fulfill the current Indian safety standards should be examined. It is up to the local politicians and government to make sure that safety standards are met and to determine if present safety standards are questionable.
7. Certain Australian schools are banning Wi-Fi, what is the rationale behind taking such steps? There is a discussion in Australia, Canada, US, Europe about the possibility of harm caused by Wi-Fi. Some school principals are banning Wi-Fi, due to pressure from parents of the children. Grass root movements of parents concerned with Wi-Fi in schools is, in some cases, very strong. Wi-Fi radiation is similar to that emitted by cell phones and cell towers, which have been classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen. We can be legitimately concerned about what might happen to children, who are very young and spend seven to eight hours continuously exposed to Wi-Fi radiation. It is a responsible precautionary measure to ban Wi-Fi in schools. There are places where providing wired internet is not possible, like in railway stations or airports, but in schools wired internet is possible to install. There is no real need for Wi-Fi for schools. In other places, where the wired internet is not feasible, is also possible to introduce precautionary measures. In airports or railway stations, there are enclosed spaces where people can gather and smoke tobacco. Others are not exposed to smoke. A similar thing can be done for providing Wi-Fi connectivity. There could be provided enclosed areas, with walls built of materials not allowing Wi-Fi radiation to go outside, where Wi-Fi access would be provided without unnecessary exposing everyone.
8. WHO is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year? What is the researchers' fraternity expecting out of the report? As also, do you think there is now evidence enough after the release of French epidemiological study in 2014 that classification of cell phone radiation should be shifted from Group 2B to Group 2A or Group 1?
The yet to be released WHO report has been delayed for ten years. They were waiting for the results to see if the Interphone project was finalized and, later, for the IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity. The WHO report will analyze all effects of radiation possibly fertility in humans and other health issues, not only cancer. ICNIRP scientists are involved in the WHO report and, therefore, one cannot expect that it will substantially differ from what ICNIRP is saying. The recent French CERENAT epidemiological study provides, together with Interphone and Hardell studies, is an evidence sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.
9. Recently the industry has started a campaign stating that radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones is not hazardous. They have brought in researchers like Dr Mike Repacholi, the ex co-ordinator of the radiation and environment health unit of WHO, who has claimed there are no health hazards from mobile towers/phone radiation. Do you agree with his statements?
The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don't have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity.
(Dr Dariusz Leszczynski also blogs at - http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com)
Mobilize asks us to consider what electromagnetic radiation might do to kids growing up with devices. (Photo via Mobilize)
We all have a sneaking suspicion that our cell phones are bad for us. You hear it every day: they erode our attention span and keep us connected to social media when we should be paying attention to the people right in front of our eyes. But what if cell phones are actually physically bad for us?
Mobilize, an upcoming documentary from filmmaker Kevin Kunze, is the first feature-length documentary to examine the possibly harmful effects of cell phone radiation. The production value is shoddy at best — Mr. Kunze started the film as a student, and paid the production costs himself — but the film is dense with professors and researchers who testify that the effects of cell phone radiation on the human brain are very real.
The film zeroes in on a specific phenomenon — the effects of the radiation in cell phones when they are held against the side of your head. Cell phones emit a small amount of electromagnetic radiation when they transmit a signal, and the film asks whether or not that radiation has any effect on the human brain, the most sensitive area cell phones come in contact with.
As the film shows, most cell phone manufacturers include ass-covering disclaimers in their phone manuals, suggesting you keep your phone about an inch away from your face — an absurd request for someone who needed to, say, make a phone call. The radiation is real, but unlike health risks from tobacco, certain medicines, or cars, the warning has been relegated to fine print in small books that almost no one reads.
The FCC regulates both cell phone radiation and the media, and is heavily influenced by the cell phone industry’s powerful lobbying group. (Photo via Mobilize)
The biggest trouble with getting accurate research, Mr. Kunze said, is a tale as old as time in politics: lobbying money. For every independent research report that says there’s a tie between cell phone radiation and brain tumors, there’s an industry-sponsored report to refute it.
The film makes multiple allusions to the lobbying playbook of the tobacco industry when it first started to become clear that cigarettes are unhealthy, but Mr. Kunze doesn’t see tobacco as the best analogy.
“I think the better comparison is cars, which are another part of everyday life” he said. “It was years before we put in airbags and seatbelts, because we were blaming drivers for getting t-boned instead of focusing on what the industry could do.”
But plenty of people died in car accidents before that happened. When it comes to cell phones, it appears that we’re doing alright so far. After all, we haven’t seen incredible spikes in the number of brain tumors to correlate with the sudden ever-presence of cell phones.
The issue, Mr. Kunze says, is the threat to young kids. No generation before this one will have had cell phones since infancy, and developing brains are much more susceptible to electromagnetic radiation.
“Why not educate kids on this issue?” Mr. Kunze asks. “They’re the ones who are most vulnerable, and they’re the ones we’re experimenting on.”
Children born in the past few years will be the first generation with lifelong exposure to cell phone radiation. (Photo via Mobilize)
Mr. Kunze has been embedded in researching the issue for years, but when you speak to him, his claims often sound conspiratorial. He believes that suspicion around cell phone radiation has factored into the reasoning behind Facebook’s reluctance to get into the phone business, or why President Obama’s daughters don’t have phones (in fact, Malia has had one for years).
There are parts of the film where this over-reaching leads toward tinfoil hat territory. One clip shows Virgin founder Richard Branson saying that he uses a headset because he’d rather keep dangerous cell phones away from his body and face. Mobilize points out that he later went on to establish Virgin Mobile and now does cell phone commercials, and begs the question: What does Richard Branson know that we don’t?
Probably nothing. The more likely explanation is that in the early clip, filmed off-the-cuff in the back of a limo half a decade ago, caught him in a moment of speculation. It’s not clear that it’s ever something Mr. Branson cared very deeply about, or that he’s got some secret knowledge we’re not in on.
But to Mr. Kunze’s point, the problem is that nobody has anything approaching a definitive conclusion. As long as lobbying money is more powerful than our willingness to seriously look at the devices up in our pockets, we will continue to not know and make cynical jokes that our cell phones are killing us, instead of very seriously asking if they are.
391 Comments
