San Fran: Mobile Phones Need Warning Attached

June 17, 2010 By Eric Betz
Despite numerous studies, medical researchers haven't found conclusive evidence that cell phones increase the risk of brain cancer.Credit: ISNS / CJN

San Francisco is set to be the first place in the nation to require that retailers tell consumers how much radiation their brain will absorb from new phones. The ordinance -- approved on Tuesday and now awaiting Mayor Gavin Newsom's signature -- is an attempt to err on the side of caution in the debate over whether or not cell phones can cause brain cancer.

Despite numerous studies, medical researchers haven't found conclusive evidence that cell phones increase the risk of brain cancer, and many physicists say that there's no need to investigate a possible link between mobile phones and cancer because the emitted by the phones theoretically can’t affect . California politicians, however, have moved to act preemptively in response to public concerns over the often contradictory reports.

"The science is in, if there were no concern there would be no limit," said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, in a floor debate on similar statewide legislation. "The federal government did determine it was an issue of concern because in 1996 it set a maximum limit on the amount of this radiation that can be emitted."

In early June, Sen. Leno introduced a nearly identical bill in Sacramento. The bill made it out of committee, but died on the senate floor and even a revised version that only required online retailers to list the numbers was voted down. While there were more ayes than nays, eight members refused to vote on the measure and it failed to meet the necessary 21 votes.

When the new legislation was introduced during last week’s San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting, members voted to delay considering the ordinance until Tuesday amid accusations from other board members that they were caving to industry and retailer lobbying. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics -- a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money on public policy in all 50 states -- the wireless phone industry donates millions to California politicians, with much of the California state Senate receiving donations varying from $1,000 to as much as $27,000 from AT&T Inc. every election year.

Manufacturers are already required to report to the Federal Communications Commission the maximum amount of radiation -- called the specific absorption rate, or SAR -- that each phone emits. According to University of California, Berkeley researcher Joel Moskowitz, this current maximum allowable amount is based on the amount of radiation that the brain of a 200 pound man would receive if he talked on a for six minutes.

Leno's argument, as well the Board of Supervisors' and other politicians supporting the new laws, is that the information should be provided to consumers directly until a scientific consensus can be reached. They say that finding the absorption rate associated with a particular phone is currently too difficult for consumers. However, many scientists and industry officials believe the new requirement amounts to misleading the public into thinking there’s a reason to be concerned.

"What this implies is that we should just ignore the fundamental laws, because there just isn’t any mechanism," said Robert Park, a University of Maryland - College Park physicist. "This is an announcement that something is wrong and when you haven’t found anything wrong this just erodes public confidence in warnings."

In an editorial featured in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Park explained that most physicists don't believe there could be such a link because there is no known mechanism for a cell phone to damage the body. Electromagnetic-fields produce two types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. The first type comes from high-energy waves like X-rays or ultraviolet light that can damage DNA. Ionizing radiation is what causes things like skin-cancer and is the reason why we wear lead blankets when getting X-rays taken at the dentist’s or doctor’s office.

Cell phones transmit information over a radio frequency that sits somewhere between AM radio and the average microwave. This non-ionizing radiation packs a much weaker punch than ionizing radiation and while it can be absorbed by body tissues, the low-frequency can’t generate enough heat to damage them.

"Everyone knows that cancer agents act by creating mutant strands of DNA which then grow as a cancer," Park said. "Without creating a mutant strand of DNA there’s no way this could cause cancer."

However, some medical researchers believe there is strong evidence for a link between certain types of brain tumors and cell phone use, even though they haven’t yet established a mechanism to explain the connection.

Moskowitz examined a collection of studies that explored this link and was troubled by his findings. In the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Moskowitz reported significant discrepancies between studies his team identified as being higher-quality independent studies and studies that were either low-quality or done by the cell phone industry.

While the independent studies showed a significant risk of brain cancer in heavy, long-term cell phone users, Moskowitz said the industry-funded research tended to show a reduced risk of associated with heavy use.

"It's almost a 'darned if you do, darned if you don't' situation," said John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the cell phone industry group CTIA. "If you do the research, you’re criticized for industry doing the research and if you don’t you’re criticized for not having studied it."

Walls says that while the industry has funded studies for years, many of the largest studies have been carried out by the government on the industry’s dime with what he calls a "stringent firewall" between the research and the money. Walls also points out the most recently released study, the World Health Organization’s Interphone report, examined more than 10 years of data from 13 nations and showed nothing conclusive. However, several researchers, including Moskowitz, have pointed out several pieces of the report they claim the team misinterpreted to underestimate the risks. The Interphone report was funded in part by a European cell phone industry group.

"I don't see how SAR labels will mislead consumers as the cellular industry claims," Moskowitz said. "The industry is being disingenuous. They issue safety warnings in their instruction manuals, but often hide them or try to get consumers to ignore them."

While cell phone companies have never publicly agreed that there is a risk, cell phone user manuals can paint a contradictory image. The Blackberry Pearl manual recommends keeping the cell phone at least an inch away from the body, including the abdomen of pregnant women and also claims that using a non-certified belt-holster might present a risk of serious harm. The same manual also suggests turning the phone off when in a breast or pants pocket, using a hands-free device, text messaging whenever possible and "limiting the amount of time spent on the phone."

Walls says that the cell phone industry isn't aware of any health risks associated with using cell phones and these kinds of warnings in cell manuals are just a way of avoiding liability. "There’s no difference in one device versus another as long as they both comply to the stringent standards of the FCC," Walls said.

Some companies have sought to capitalize on the public confusion by creating devices that supposedly limit radiation exposure. One such company, Belly Armor, makes t-shirts and stomach bands designed to shield pregnant mothers from "everyday radiation." The company also makes blankets designed to be placed between a pregnant mother's stomach and a laptop, citing unconfirmed health risks like autism, leukemia, cancer and even miscarriage.

"I've got constituents that are dealing with very serious health concerns and they are 100-percent convinced that it's because they had (a cell phone) to their brain for 20 years," Leno said in the same floor debate. "I'm not here to confirm that correlation, but with all the questions here why would we not want to require that … the SAR be shared?"

Explore further: Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning

Related Stories

Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning

December 21, 2009

(AP) -- A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute ...

WHO study suggests link between cell phones and tumors

October 27, 2009

( -- Preliminary results of an International investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest there may be a "significantly increased risk" of some types of brain tumors after use of mobile phones ...

Choosing a Low Radiation Cell Phone

September 10, 2009

( -- An Environmental Working Group (EWG) team has released a consumer guide on the radiation levels emitted by over 1,000 cell phones sold in the U.S. The guide is the most comprehensive ever published, and is ...

Bias affects cell phone cancer risk findings

October 15, 2009

( -- A group of South Korean and American researchers has found studies of possible links between cell phones and brain tumors and other cancers vary in quality, and those suggesting there is little or no risk ...

Cell phone may hurt child's health

October 9, 2007

Professor Kjell Mild of Sweden's Orbero University said young children are more at risk when using cell phones because of their thinner skulls.

Recommended for you

Old, meet new: Drones, high-tech camera revamp archaeology

November 24, 2017

Scanning an empty field that once housed a Shaker village in New Hampshire, Jesse Casana had come in search of the foundations of stone buildings, long-forgotten roadways and other remnants of this community dating to the ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
So what if you've had a phone to your head for 20 years and have brain cancer. You may have also eaten a muffin every day, or wore headphones, or tied your shoes.... How are you going to single out the cell phone when you haven't isolated every other variable in your life? Is there a higher incident of brain cancer in people who use cell phones vs. people who don't? If there is, are the cell users also exposed to numerous other 21st century substances that a non cell user wouldn't come in contact with? If the science says it's safe and the studies say it's safe, it's safe.
not rated yet Jun 18, 2010
Wouldn't it be more productive to ban tobacco entirely in SF? Definitely more lives would get saved.
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Wouldn't it be more productive to ban tobacco entirely in SF? Definitely more lives would get saved.

Except for all the murders that would arise from irate smokers all trying to quit cold turkey at the same time ;)
not rated yet Jun 18, 2010
You would think that politicians could come up with a better use of their time. What might the warning say?

"Use of this transmitting device may expose the user to X mW of electro-magnetic radiation at wavelengths which has not been conclusively shown to increase risk and for which no harmful mechanism to living tissue has been discovered. But certain nanny-state politicians insist on warning you about their phobia of brain cancer anyway."
Jun 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
not rated yet Jun 20, 2010
I suspect far more deaths occur from cellphone users failing to pay attention to traffic while yacking.

Not that I've seen any solid evidence linking cellphone use to cancer.
not rated yet Jun 21, 2010
Wow... This is what we pay them for. To sit around all day, probably on their cell phones, Talking about the inconclusive probability that cell phones may cause brain cancer. Here is the secret of cancer, anything and everything in sufficiently high dosages of a substance over a sustainable and prolonged period of time, I'd bet my entire life's income would give you cancer. I am sure if you consumed 8 times the normal amount of vitamin C everyday because you where afraid of getting a cold, after about 25 years you'd have cancer. Get over it, and learn to make rational decisions for your lives with out having the government hold your hand. If you eat McDonnalds every day for three meals a day you get fat, If you milk cobras every day for venom you will get bitten, if you skate board you will fall, and if you consume too much of something no matter how many experts tell you it is good for you, you will get cancer.
not rated yet Jun 21, 2010
Will Cell phones give you cancer? I do not know but I bet if you strap one on your head for 20 years with a live signal, not only would you have the world's largest cell phone bill but I'd also bet cancer to go with it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.