Click here to return to
Press Articles INDEX
FINANCIAL TIMES
April 22, 1999
HEALTH MOBILE TELEPHONES
Phone calls that sound alarm bells
Peter Pallot examines the sometimes conflicting signals coming from inquirles into the effects of using mobiles.
Around 50 research projects are dedicated to answering one question: do mobile phones damage health? This worldwide total increased by one this month when the Department of Health in London launched its own "definitive and rigorous" inquiry.
The move followed a starting finding at Bristol University, Alan Preece and colleagues dismissed popular theories that mobiles "cook" brains, destroy memory or promote cancer – ideas falsely attributed to Mr. Preece in the media.
However, Mr. Preece did find that cellphone-level radiation produced quicker reaction times. When mobile phones strapped to the ears of 36 volunteers were switched on, the subjects hit a Yes or No switch 4 per cent more quickly than when the phones were off.
The scientists were unable to say whether the faster response was due to heating in a part of the brain near the ear. Increased blood flow might account for the modest gain; or it could be that the radiation trigged a more complex bio-reaction in which proteins designed to protect endangered tissue come into play. The health implications of continuous production of these so-called heat shock proteins are unknown, says Mr. Preece.
"Heat shock proteins are produced as a defensive mechanism by the body to heat. If you trigger the body’s defensive mechanism too often, it doesn’t always react when it should.
"If heat shock proteins are being created, urgent further research will be needed."
How long can you use a mobile phone before biochemical changes take place? That is another unanswered question. A complication factor is that radiation absorbed by the user varies according to strength of signal and type of phone.
Heat shock proteins are also produced in response to tissue damage. They appear to be part of the body’s cell repair mechanism. Clearly, if the cellphone user has an embryonic brain tumor, bombarding it with possible growth "potentiators" is unwise. The same would apply if the user habitually carried the mobile in a pocket next to an undetected growth elsewhere on the body. This theory underlies most legal cases brought by cancer patients against employers or phone manufacturers, to date unsuccessfully.
One fallback is epidemiology. The World Health Organization is engaged in a 86m study to compare the cell-phone use of 8,000 brain tumor victims in Europe to matched controls. It is structured to minimize confounding factors, such as the fact that tumor patients may exaggerate the amount they telephone as "rationale" for their condition.
It would be surprising if the study proves conclusive. No research that has questioned mobile safety has yet been reproduced. One reason is that the scientists are dealing with such small electromagnetic doses. A cellphone emits 1,000th the radiation of a microwave oven, although emissions from both devices are as well absorbed by human tissue as by yesterday’s shepherd’s pie.
Chief among epidemiological research is a Swedish/Norwegian study of 11,000 mobile users by Dr. Kjell-Hansson Mild of the National Institute of Working Life in Umea, Sweden. It found they experienced more fatigue, irritation and warmth around the ear than analogue phone users.
Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board – which is overseeing the Health Department’s study – was among critics which pointed to the need for independent corroboration of the Scandinavian work. Research pitfalls are legion. Subjects in Norway, for instance, were much more likely to complain of symptoms than those in Sweden, where newspapers have been less shrill.
Also triggering alarm bells has been Henry Lai of Washington University in Seattle. He exposed rate to radiation: they produced stress hormones along with pleasure-enhancing endorphins.
Another experiment on rats, by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down in Wiltshire, linked brain bio-effects to radiation. Also in Britain, David de Pomerai at Nottingham University showed that worm larvae exposed to radiation grew 5 per cent faster than usual. This indicated quicker cell division, an obvious possible cancer link.
What really put the wind up cellphone manufacturers occurred two years ago in Australia. Researchers at the Royal Adelaide Hospital reported that giving low radiation to mice doubled their chances of developing lymphomas. But other researchers’ attempts at replication have failed.
With many years likely to pass before the microwave/cancer conundrum is sorted, innovators have been active. Shields reduce radiation to the head by up to 56 per cent, according to tests at the Center for Electromagnetic Metrology in Teddington, Middlesex.
New Scientist, which commissioned the experiment, points out that the irony is the best brain protection came from phones not marketed for their health safety. Hands-free sets are worn on a waist belt with wired ear-piece and microphones.
Meanwhile, EMX, a US-European "bio-protection" company, is this summer launching a microchip which scrambles the electromagnetic field around mobiles.
It follows work by Ted Litovitz of the Catholic University of America, in Washington DC, who says uniform frequencies from electrical equipment interfere with cell processes in a way that "incoherent" natural frequencies do not. He showed this by exposing chicken embryos to mobile-style radiation: abnormalities occurred. When the field was randomly jammed by a superimposed signal, the chicks prospered.
With more than 300m people using mobiles, the safety controversy must surely be resolved. In the interim, the easiest precaution is to keep calls brief. If it does not lengthen your lifespan, it will at least cut your phone bill.
EMF Issues • EMF FAQ • Press Articles • Scientific • Press Releases • Products • About EMF Bio • ICS Website