Plagues,
Pestilences and Diseases
How radiation from wireless technology can seriously affect
the body
CBC News
Posted: Oct 5, 2011 11:58 AM ET
Last Updated: Oct 5, 2011 11:53 AM ET
Most people don't think twice about talking, texting or emailing
on the go — sending waves of radiation into the environment and
their bodies as they stay connected through mobile technology.
The bulk of research into cellphones and their base towers has
found no definitive evidence that short-term use poses significant
health risks to humans. So, policy makers have given industry the
green light, allowing the use of wireless gear to explode around
the world, to about five billion wireless subscriptions worldwide,
by the World Health Organization's estimate.
Now that the technology has been widely used for a number of
years, researchers have turned their attention to exploring
possible effects of long-term exposure to the electromagnetic
fields they emit.
In May 2011, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer
did a review of existing research on the effects of exposure to
such electromagnetic fields. It found that, for most cancers, the
available evidence was inadequate to make any conclusions about
risk.
In the case of glioma, a type of brain cancer, and acoustic
neuroma, a slow-growing non-cancerous tumour in the inner ear that
results in hearing loss, the existing evidence was limited. This
means the group found that evidence of a causal relationship
between cellphone radiation exposure and increased risk of
developing one of those diseases was credible but could not rule
out that chance or bias had played a role in establishing that
relationship.
Nevertheless, the group found that in the case of glioma, the
evidence was significant enough to warrant classifying radio
frequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to
humans," a WHO category known as 2B, and to warrant further study
of a possible link between wireless use and cancer risk, the group
said.
To help put this in perspective, coffee and the pesticide DDT are
also classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
Earlier reviews of research done by the European Commission and by
Swedish scientists, whose results were published in the journal
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, found some evidence of
increased relative risk of glioma and acoustic neuromas after more
than 10 years of cellphone use. But these studies also said the
majority of papers on the topic reported no connection between 10
years of mobile phone use and disease.
Another study — published July 27, 2011, in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute — looked at children from Norway,
Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland, aged 7 to 19. It found that those
with brain tumours were not statistically more likely to have been
regular cellphone users than the control subjects.
Supporting data on either side of the debate is limited. Health
Canada, the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. and the
European Union have based their cellphone regulations on the
majority of evidence available so far.
Who's using wireless
Cellphone technology is already firmly ingrained in Canadian
culture — especially in urban centres. More than 24 million of us
used cellphones by the end of 2010, according to Health Canada.
The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association estimated 70
per cent of people in major urban centres in Canada are using
wireless telecommunications technology, with some areas
approaching the 80 per cent mark.
Placing voice calls on mobile devices rather than emailing or
texting raises potential health concerns, because a user's level
of exposure to radio frequency energy is higher during a call.
Talking on a handset takes a lot more power than sending and
receiving texts or other information, and the handset is usually
held closer to your body when you're speaking than when you're
using the device for other purposes.
The amount of radiation — in this case, electromagnetic waves
emitted by handsets — that penetrates your body is based largely
on how close the device is to your head during calls, the number
of phone calls you make and how long your calls last.
Is it all in our heads?
According to the WHO, Health Canada, the FDA and the EC report,
the bulk of scientific research has found no significant links
between cellphone use and adverse health effects.
The EC research review did find some evidence that radio-frequency
energy can cause local temperature changes in the brain, alter
protein structure and expression, and affect neurotransmitter
biochemistry.
A matter of power
If cellphones radiate waves similar in frequency to microwave
ovens, and we hold handsets close to our heads, could we be
cooking our craniums?
According to the United Kingdom health protection agency, the
maximum temperature rise in the head due to absorption of energy
from a mobile phone is around 0.1ºC — a far cry from what a
microwave oven does to a frozen dinner.
Tony Muc, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto and
the chief physicist at Toronto-based Radiation Health and Safety
Consulting, explained the difference lies in the amount of power
each device uses. Most cellphones operate at power levels ranging
from 0.2 to 0.6 watts.
The average household microwave generates 500 to 1,000 watts,
according to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.
Muc said that, with a cellphone, "you have this little source
powered by a battery that you're holding within a centimetre of
your head, that's about 1,000 times weaker [than a microwave
oven].
"So the net effect [of a cellphone] is still negligible — just
like the net effect of the microwave oven is negligible, because
even though it's stronger, you're further away."
It can be argued that while electromagnetic fields, the basis for
cellular communication, have been studied extensively, mobile
technology is unique because handsets are used in such close
proximity to our bodies. Nevertheless, Muc says decades of
research into electromagnetic fields have given us enough
information to reject "the precautionary principle" as the best
course of action when it comes to wireless communications.
Both the EC and the Occupational and Environmental Medicine
studies found evidence that cellphone radiation might possibly
influence some human behaviour, such as attention and memory.
The EC report also reviewed previous research into a possible link
between mobile phone use and brain tumours in children and
concluded that further investigation into the issue is "warranted"
given the widespread use of cellphones among children and
adolescents and the lack of relevant studies looking at possible
effects on this group.
The U.K., Germany, Belgium, Israel, Russia, France and India
advise that children limit their use of cellphones.
In October 2011, Health Canada slightly changed its previous
guideline to encourage Canadians to limit cellphone calls,
especially those under the age of 18.
Previously, Health Canada said people could limit their use if
they were worried about a possible link between cellphones and
cancer.
James McNamee, division chief for health effects and assessments
in Health Canada's bureau of consumer and clinical radiation
protection, said the agency was trying to be more proactive about
its message for children.
"There has been relatively little science done on children and
children's cellphone use, and children are going to be using these
devices for a much larger period of their life span," McNamee
said. "Their brains and immune systems are still developing."
Health Canada said cellphone users may take practical steps to
reduce exposure, such as:
* Limit the length of cellphone calls.
* Replace cellphone calls with text messages or use
"hands-free" devices.
* Encourage those under the age of 18 to limit the cellphone
use.
EMF
With researchers lacking the timeline, and therefore the data, to
take a definitive stand on the long-term health effects of mobile
telecommunications, some organizations, such as members of the
BioInitiative Report, the European Environment Agency, and the EMR
Policy Group, say current laws regulating the use of
electromagnetic devices should be reconsidered.
Their position, which they say follows "the precautionary
principle," is that if we can't be certain something won't have a
negative impact on our health, we should err on the side of
caution.