Department of Research
Cellular Phones and Cancer
Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? < Current News >
< June 2001 Update >

Cellular phone use is still increasing, although not as rapidly as a few years ago mostly due to the fact that nearly everyone who needs or really wants one already has one. Europe is the worlds largest market for new phones presently. Nokia of Finland and other corporations are rapidly developing and fielding new technologies such as compressed digital communications protocols allowing for the transfer of data and video signals through cell phones bringing the internet right to you head, literally. Microsoft will put windows CE on the phones and pretty soon we won’t be able to tell the difference between a PDA handheld computer and a telephone.

All this wonderful technology may come with a very steep cost and I’m not just referring to the price tag. The health dangers of near field microwave radiation have been chronically under reported, especially in North America. But brain cancer is only one way to potentially die from cell phone use. Since many people use their phones while driving the danger of accidents is very real. Is a cell phone worth a tumor in your brain or a wrecked car and a steering column punched through your chest? Or is that an overly morbid conclusion?

Cell phones have also been known to detrimentally interact with other electronic devices even causing death or injury. Airplanes won’t allow cell phones to be used for the stated reason it could interrupt their avionics. This is possible but not especially likely, the threat that a cell phone could crash a plane is virtually complete scaremongering; but radio interference would be sufficiently dangerous anyhow. A more real problem would be that the cell phone would jam up cell towers over several states given the high altitude of the plane. More esoteric cases include things like pacemakers, electronic limbs, etc. losing control. One example is an electric wheelchair that purportedly went over a cliff with a person in it when someone nearby used his or her cell phone! (read Monitoring Times Magazine) Digital phones are known to be much more dangerous in these cases than the older analog ones. Perhaps due to the pulse like effect of the signal.

Clearly, cases such as these are rare but it can happen and it wouldn’t really be funny if it happened to you, or then again who knows maybe it would. As electronic devices evolve they use less power and become more prone to interference that emanates from more and more sources and devices. Unfortunately, the FCC is in no position to manage the avalanche of wireless devices entering the marketplace; for the most part any sufficiently low powered device is free to do almost anything it can get away with. Clearly the problem is only going to get worse. Eventually manufacturers will be forced to address this issue and design interference resistance into the circuitry of their devices.

Unlike the earlier analogue-phones, the new digital ones emit a series of 546µs radiofrequency (RF) pulses at a repetition rate of 217Hz. This has been shown to be more biologically active than continuous radiation of the same frequency and power level. Take an operating digital GSM mobile-phone near an ordinary medium wave radio and you will hear a "rattle-clatter" buzzing noise. These pulses are also picked up and detected by the cells inside the user’s and other nearby people’s heads. This means that the brain cells are being "hit" by these radiation pulses two hundred and seventeen times every second. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/micromob.html

But backing up a bit, cellular phones get their name from the fact that they operate using 'cells' of around 1-3 miles. At the center of each cell is a tower or cellular antenna mounted on a tall location such as building, billboard or similar eyesore. This base antenna relays the handset cell phone signals sent out from the phone in your hand into the main telecom landline structure and sends back the other half of the duplex signal to the handset. As the phone user travels say in a car they pass from one cell to another and the frequency is automatically shifted to accommodate both the number of users in the cell and the change of location. The handset next to your ear operates on one set of frequencies while the tower operates on another. Standard cell phone handset frequencies are between 830-850 MHz; this is the bottom of the ‘microwave mobile band’ because the signals are technically classified as being microwaves. PCS phones operate from 900-940mHz while newer PCS phones operates at a much higher frequency around 1850-1990mHz. All PCS uses digital signals while most cellular phones have adopted the digital as well due to the higher volume of callers this format sustains. For reference, UHF TV in North America operates from 500-800 MHz. And incidentally most new cordless phones operate around 900mhz although the only research I’ve read has had to do with cell phones I don’t believe the danger is any less in a cordless phone; it would depend on the power used.

The antenna on the phone and the corresponding frequencies are the only radiation medical science is concerned with because it’s not so much the power of the signal emanating from the phone as it is the proximity to the internal organs of the human body most notably the brain and ear. Likewise the very old style radio-mobile phones operating in 30 or 150 MHz are not microwave radiation, they are as 'dangerous' as a walkie talkie. Also electromagnetic radiation rapidly decreases in strength with distance, so much so that even moving the phone a few inches from your ear will significantly lower the radiation hazard, although that may not be especially practical in noisy environments.

As can be seen with the latest PCS bands the tendency is to move towards increasingly higher frequencies for mobile phones. The reason is that the band from 30-1000 MHz is completely allocated and packed. The band from 1-2 gigahertz has been auctioned off and allocated; it’s increasingly overused as well. Any new systems in the near future will most likely be above 2 gigahertz. This will make the radiation danger only worse because in this case its essentially the higher the frequency the greater the danger of cell mutations.

Are the base-station masts dangerous?
Although cellular-phone base station masts emit a continuous stream of microwave radiation pulses, their level of radiation is usually quite low. Modern masts use linear RF power amplifiers, typically 40 watts (though up to 320W), and broadcast on a number of frequencies simultaneously. On digital systems the power effectively rises as more calls are active and there are no missing time slots. Maximum fields from the mast, at ground level, usually occur between about 30 and 100 metres from the mast. Over the range from ground level at the base of the mast out to about 150 metres signal level is usually less than 120dBmV/m (1V/m). This is equivalent to 0.003 W/m² (0.0003mW/cm²), a signal level comparable to the radio and television signals that already surround us. These levels can be greatly exceeded, and RF levels in flat roofed classrooms directly beneath antenna have been measured up to 0.65mW/cm² which is getting near (about one sixth) the current "thermally based" guidelines. - Ibid

The greatest impediment with identifying cause and effect is merely the fact that mobile phones using microwave frequencies have only been in wide use for 5-10 years. Simply too short of a time period to clearly demonstrate the development of cancer caused by this use since cancer takes years even decades to develop.

Still, despite what industry and some professionals may claim, cancer has been shown to be caused by cell phone usage. Multiple independent and valid research has conclusively proven that prolonged exposure to cellular phone microwave radiation does cause cell mutations leading to cancer. Now with that fact clearly in mind the best advice is to minimize exposure to this radiation either by using a hands free or device moving the antenna as far away from the body as possible and or simply using the cell phone as little as possible. I'm not telling anyone to completely throw the phone away if it's important and necessary to business and personal life. After all many things are carcinogenic, even aspartame "nutrasweet" which is in half the foods people eat is carcinogenic (that’s another report in itself). The point is: minimize exposure.

As research continues other dangers are being discovered. Swedish researchers at Lund University are doing research into the connection between Alzheimer’s disease and mobile phone usage. The University of North Carolina has done research which shows that prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields in general cause an increase in depression and suicide. This is based on data from power line and other electrical workers who have unusually high rates of suicide. This is probably related to melatonin levels that the electromagnetic fields are depleting.

Closing Commentary

One striking difference between European science and American is that the east Atlantic decides on the side of safety while the west falls on the side of pessimism. The American scientists are very quick to discount any dangers, this is surprising given both the seriousness of brain cancer and the general lack of extensive long term research; not to mention the sheer number of people using cell phones! The Europeans are much more aware of the potential dangers and have also been more involved in trying to find out what is happening. It seems to me that it would be better to err on the side of safety in this issue, I mean brain cancer isn't exactly like a broken leg, it’s serious stuff!

The entire spectrum of EMF, appliance radiation and microwaves has only existed in the home and office for around 20 years. The microwave oven is only about 25 and the microwave cell phone about 8! Is it really possible to say conclusively that cancer is not a threat at all? I think not. Cancer is reliant on both age and a genetic predilection towards getting it. The baby boom generation is just now entering the age phase where cancers will begin to become even more serious and latent, they are also the generation to first come into daily contact with these appliances. We may see a significant increase in cancers in the near future, a threat that hasn’t really gotten the attention it rightly deserves.

I think part of the problem is that industry sponsors so much research either directly through their corporate labs or indirectly through university sponsorship that doing research into cell phone cancer is just less popular, less funded in the U$ than in Europe and Australia. Sweden for example doesn’t seem to be burdened by this problem. Erickson is a major cell-phone manufacturer based in Sweden yet some of the most conclusive and well-documented research on cell-phone cancer and electromagnetic danger has come from that country.

Cancer of any kind is a very serious issue, but to get a cancer that is preventable is especially tragic. Cancer throughout the world is becoming more common largely due to the aging of the planets population but also the much greeter exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and radiation. Last time I checked cancer has no cure, merely oncological ‘Band-Aids’ nearly as bad as the alternative like chemotherapy. The best action a person can take at our present level of scientific and medical knowledge is to minimized exposure to all electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Try not to live near high voltage power lines, avoid or don’t use at all cellular phones or cordless phones, buy low radiation monitors and buy or make shielding for high emission appliances where present.

In light of the fact that overall cancer incidence rates are rising, most for reasons that are unclear, Savitz's advice to remain open minded is sound. It seems apparent that lifestyle choices can either protect against or promote the onset of cancer. There is also ample evidence illuminating the role that exposure to various natural and man-made environmental substances play in cancer. Ultimately, elucidating the cause of cancer and protecting people against its encroaching shadow will entail vigilant research and clarification of the interplay of environmental and genetic factors. From: http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1995/103(11)/focus1.html

I’ve personally never had the desperate need for a cellular phone, that uncontrollable urge to be able to talk to anyone at anytime. As easy as it seems to blame it on American excess Finland AKA Phoneland is really the world center for cell-phones. Nokia alone makes up something like 2/5 of the Finish economy. So on a personal and social level I have to ask, whom do you really need to talk to that badly that you have to pack a phone around with you everywhere? That you can’t wait until you get home or to work to call? And is it worth endangering your life while driving? To annoy everyone around in theaters, class, and other public places with the incessant ringing? Is it worth the cost and the loss of privacy? Not to mention the health risks and the economic risks if it were to be cloned? Why not just attach a homing beacon to yourself, buy a "LOJAC" for your car and a dog collar and glue them together then wear it around town, isn’t that the same thing anyway? You know the Russians bombed a Chechen leader (Dudayev) using just that technique – homing in on his cell phone. The police can theoretically do the same thing (tracking I mean), just a matter of buying the equipment. Certainly the FBI would have no problems with it even if your local police department wouldn’t have the expertise.

Cell phones really aren’t what they appear to be. They don’t save time they just make life more stressful for the user and the people around them. They make life more dangerous through radiation and simple safety violations. The endless series of cell towers throughout cities and along highways are worse than billboards and even more unsightly. Finally, why make modern life more carcinogenic and noise polluted than it already is?

Updates

Since this report was originally written in April 2000, many American cell and cordless phone users have caught up with their more safety conscious friends on the eastern side of the Atlantic. The myth of the completely harmless cell phone is on increasingly tenuous ground although defining direct causality is still murky enough for certain factions to claim both ends of the spectrum from harmful to harmless.

Cell phone manufacturers will soon be releasing radiation statistics on their phones and I suppose this is a good start although just by merely adding a number to radiation levels doesn't solve the issue. It could just mean the phone gets lousy reception. There's a lot of other factors and I think just by trying to quantifying radiation levels it may actually obscure equally important aspects. Much of the safety issue resides in use and behavior such as prolonged exposure and circumstance, in other words, are we shouting into our cell phone while weaving through rush hour(s) traffic?

Now the FCC is in the process of collating and posting RF emission from electronic devices which should help the consumer.

Another concern that still seems poorly addressed is the differences in the types of radiation pulses being used by the phones. What is the health difference between say a pulsed TDMA or GSM signal and especially the CDMA signal? We already know the pulsed digital signals have a nasty tendency to interfere with other electronics, perhaps they also interfere with biological processes? The older analog cellular and cordless phones are probably the safest in this regard but phone companies don't want to use that format because they can't cram nearly as many calls into a given chunk of bandwidth as with digital coding. And the frequency allocations are another issue worth investigating. What of the deleterious trend towards higher frequencies from 800 MHz cellular to 900 MHz cordless then to 2 GHz PCS and upward. Here's a warming thought: keep in mind that a microwave oven operates at or near 2.450 GHz.

The bottom line is really about common sense and differentiating between the phone and the antenna because the culprit isn't the phone it's the transmitting antenna. In the case of cordless phones that is the handset antenna and the base station antenna or in cell phones that's the base station tower and the antenna on the phone in your hand. The simplest solution is to separate the antenna from the phone and wire it to get it as far away from yourself as possible but of course without defeating the purpose of a portable device.

* * *

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers. From: Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?, by Lean and Shawcross, The Independent, April 15, 2007.
 

News

Resources

 Content & Design © Freydis
Updated: March, 2008
Created: 1998