Possible Dangers from Cell Phone Use - Essay Example

May 4, Possible Dangers from Cell Phone Use Around 270 million Americans and 4 billion people around the world are using cell phones and more are increasingly interested in using them, according to Walsh’s Time report in 2010. The interest on whether cell phones have radiation frequency levels that are high enough to cause cancer has waxed and waned, because of mixed findings from different studies and the wireless industry’s assertion that cell phones do not emit enough radiation to cause injuries or changes in biological tissues. Recent reports that Walsh discusses, however, alert the public that they should not be too complacent in using their cell phones. The fact is that when cell phones make and take calls, they produce low-level radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Walsh notes though that even when RF waves are stronger than FM radio signals, they remain “a billionth the intensity of known carcinogenic radiation like X-rays” (48). This is the main reason why the wireless industry dismisses the idea that cell phones are dangerous. This paper argues that the public should not easily overlook the possible harms of long-term cell phone use. Using cell phones can lead to cancer and critically harm children, especially since independent studies indicate potential biological effects of cell phone use. Extensive cell phone use can change or heat biological tissues enough to possibly cause cancer or other cellular changes. Walsh highlights the 1995 study of Lai, who co-wrote a study demonstrating that a “single two-hour exposure of RF radiation,” which are the levels deemed as safe by U.S. standards, had genetically damaged rats’ brain cells enough that they developed cancer (48). Other studies could not replicate the same findings, but they are funded by the wireless industry, stresses Walsh (48). On the contrary, Walsh also reports that a European Union-funded study in 2004 found the same findings when they duplicated Lai’s study (48). Graham-Rowe of the New Scientist reports the findings of British scientists who discovered that microwave emissions that are found in mobile phones have made a certain kind of worm more fertile. It is the first study that shows that biological effects are probable in the absence of warming of tissues. Graham-Rowe stresses that William Stewart, the leader of the British government's “independent expert group” on mobile phones has taken these findings on a serious note. Graham-Rowe interviews Stewart who states: “These results are very important and potentially far-reaching. Independent confirmation is crucial and we need this quickly” (4). Graham-Rowe explains that microwaves normally do not have enough energy to damage even weak chemical bonds in human cells, so scientists think that they cannot make enough damage, unless they can heat up the cells (4). Heating up cells may be an effect of cell phones that come from the long-term human use of these gadgets. These studies provide some evidence that it is possible that cell phones, however weak their radio-frequency (RF) radiation may be, can introduce changes at cellular levels, especially at the present prevalence of cell phone use. Other studies provide findings that the same energies and heat from cell phones can result to changes in biological tissues. Graham-Rowe reports on another scientific research done by David de Pomerai at the University of Nottingham. De Pomerai affirms that cell phone radiation can impact nematode worms, though heating is not enough to explain it (5). Based on Graham-Rowe’s interview, De Pomerai's team discovered that nematode worms that are exposed to microwaves at frequencies comparable to those released by a cell phone, “increased the number of worms that go on to produce eggs” (5). The same energy and heat emitted by cell phones have caused these animals to become more fertile. This study suggests that it is possible that cell phone has radiation levels that are high enough to warming cells or to induce some cellular level of changes. Such a study cannot be ignored, because it provides evidence that cell phones emits radiation that can also affect human cells and tissues. Walsh interviews Dariusz Leszczynski, a research professor at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki. Leszczynski has conducted studies which showed that RF radiation may generate a stress reaction in the cells that enclose blood vessels, which can produce a hazardous breach in the blood-brain barrier (Walsh 48). Leszczynski states: “Mobile-phone radiation may be able to indirectly hurt cells, perhaps by interfering with their ability to repair normal DNA damage. Given the scientific uncertainty, it's premature to say the use of cell phones is safe” (Walsh 48). Like other scientists, Leszczynski does not want to presume that cell phones are 100% safe and cannot lead to potential health risks. He understands that public health is too important to not consider the possible effects of cell phones’ radio-frequency (RF) radiation on human cells. Cell phones can indirectly harm body cells, which can lead to cancer. Walsh explores the potential harms from radiation that comes from cell phones. He notes that, according to an analysis from the University of Washington neurologist Henry Lai, several independent studies have determined some kind of biological effects from using cell phones, which industry-funded studies have not discovered. Lai already found out that the same radiation emitted by cell phones caused brain cancer for his laboratory rats. Moulder, Foster, Erdreich, and McNamee, in “Mobile Phones, Mobile Phone Base Stations and Cancer: A Review,” examine the studies on the connection between mobile phone use and cancer. Their findings show that biophysical studies have made no connection between RF energy and biological effects on human tissues at the power levels of mobile phones and their base station antennas. In addition, there is weak and inadequate epidemiological evidence that can confirm that there is a causal relationship between cancer and mobile phone radioactive frequency energy. Moulder, Foster, Erdreich, and McNamee also note that even animal studies have not given strong evidence that cell phone use can result to thermal actions on body tissues or cancer. They stress that numerous in vitro studies have discovered weak evidence of genotoxic potential, although in vitro studies that investigated the epigenetic potential of RF energy are restricted. Moulder, Foster, Erdreich, and McNamee conclude, nevertheless, that: “While the existing evidence provides little or no indication that mobile phone handsets and base stations have carcinogenic potential, this evidence is not sufficient to rule out the possibility of any connection” (300). They assert that there are not enough studies that provide conclusive evidence that no carcinogenic action is present in using cell phones. They also emphasize that the follow-up periods in the studies are shorter than the numerous decades that are characteristically needed to distinguish amplified risks for solid tumors. Moulder, Foster, Erdreich, and McNamee suggest the use of more number of cases, decades of follow up, and “good exposure assessment” to further study the causal relationship between mobile phone’s RF and cancer (200). Like other studies, these studies also do not dismiss the possibility that cell phones are dangerous enough to cause cancer and other health effects through indirectly harming the cellular tissue. Small effects on cellular levels may lead to some scientists ignoring the long-term effects of the radiation frequency from cell phones. Cell phones can be particularly dangerous for children. In the article, “Cell Phones and Tumor: Still in No Man's Land,” Kohli, Sachdev, and Vats examined the harmful effects of radiofrequency radiations on human tissues and the possible result of carcinogenesis. They had done a survey of published studies that researched the same issue, and these studies included case reports, in vitro studies, population based retrospective studies, and other explorations. They used journals that resulted from using searching key words, such as ‘cell phone’, ‘radiation’, ‘cancer’ and ‘radio waves.’ Kohli, Sachdev, and Vats present findings, which showed that based on the evidence from these studies, the potential carcinogenic effect of radiofrequency radiation is “inconclusive” (5). Nevertheless, they are not too quick to miss the possible effects of radiofrequency radiations on children. They emphasize that children’s skulls have thinner bones, so radiation stimuli may have more significant effects on children than on adults and the trend of use among children is new, so prospective studies can hardly determine any negative effect of cell phone use among children (Kohli, Sachdev, and Vats 9). They are suggesting for children to not use cell phones too much, since studies have not included them pervasively and there is no evidence that can show that cell phone use has no bad effects on their cells and tissues. This concern should be taken seriously. Children are more vulnerable to cellular damage, because of their process of human development. The wireless industry argues that RF radiation is not strong enough to change the molecules of human bodies, notes Walsh. He adds that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set the “maximum for cell-phone-signal exposure” so that RF radiation levels can be controlled and prevented from damaging human cells (47). This industry standard can be enough to ensure the safety of cell phone users from harmful radiation. Walsh explores the idea that if RF radiation boosts the probability of developing brain cancer, it should be distinguished in longitudinal studies of cell-phone users. Numerous epidemiological studies have not determined a causal connection though, based on a 2007 Danish Cancer Society examination of 421,000 cell-phone users, which Walsh also reports about. John Walls, a spokesperson for CTIA, a global wireless association, asserts that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a risk” (Walsh 48). Walsh further mentions the testimony at a 2008 congressional hearing of Dr. Robert Hoover, director of the National Cancer Institute's Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program. Hoover stresses that the cell phone’s RF radiation has an effect on the human body “at least at this time, appears to be insufficient to produce genetic damage typically associated with developing cancer [italics provided by the author of this paper]” (Walsh 47). Hoover himself notes that at this time, there is no strong evidence that cell phone use can result to cancer. Nevertheless, it is possible that a causal relationship can be found in future longitudinal studies. Past studies that claim that cell phones do not lead to cancer have methodological issues, however. There are problems with many of these studies, such as poor sampling and propensity for hasty generalizations. For instance, the Danish study reviewed the records of people who signed for cellular services from 1982 to 1985 did not include business users, who are the most prevalent users and first adopters of cell phones, stresses Walsh (49). At the same time, Walsh notes that the study also explored tumors diagnosed in 2002, which is about the same time that cell phone use became more pervasive (49). Walsh maintains that brain cancers can take more years to develop, so it could have taken a longer time before cancer bumps would be seen in medical tests (49). Walsh also interviews Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, a cancer researcher at Israel's Gertner Institute. Sadetzki admits that: “The latency period we have is far too short” (Walsh 49). He mentions this for studies that focused on finding the connection between cell phone use and tumors found in salivary glands (Walsh 49). Sadetzki underscores that conditions nowadays may point to different findings: “And today, people are using the phone much more heavily” (Walsh 49). Moulder, Foster, Erdreich, and McNamee also find weaknesses in past studies. These studies have not studied the effects of cell phone use on children, have not included more cases, and have yet to be expanded to include a longer incubation period for cancer cells. These scholars generally agree that past studies cannot be ultimately compelling sources of the long-term effects of cell phone use, especially to young generations who are avid cell phone users. Instead of assuming that cell phones are entirely safe for continued and constant human use, it is better to warn the public of its potential harms. Walsh reports that some countries, such as Finland, Israel and France, have already given guidelines for cell-phone use (47). These governments are already aware of the possible effects of cell phone use, because none of them are sure that these cell phones cannot harm the public. In a technical report, “A Review of Radiation Effects on Human Operators of Hand-Held Radios,” Huynh and Stutzman review the biological effects of radio frequency radiation on biological tissues. During this time, their findings show that there is no strong evidence that radio frequency radiation can harm biological tissues. However, they stress that with the prevalence of cell phone use, “it is prudent to continue investigating potential health problems” (38). All of these studies do not automatically disregard the possible harmful health effects of cell phones, especially due to its increasing use in modern times. These studies also do not consider decades of use, or use children and adolescents as part of their sampling. They may have also overlooked other potential heavy cell phone users and have limited timeframe of study. Several independent studies that Walsh and Graham-Rowe mention give evidence that cell phones can change or harm animal tissues. These studies suggest the potential harmful effect of cell phone’s radiation on human cells. These studies cannot be dismissed too hastily. There may not be enough evidence to link cancer and cell phone use, but the public should heed the warnings from scientists that they should not also use their cell phones too much without using ear phones, and they should ensure some distance between their cell phones and their heads and bodies. Works Cited Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “Wake-Up Call.” New Scientist 173.2329 (9 Feb. 2002): 4-5. Print. Huynh, Minh-Chau and Warren Stutzman. “A Review of Radiation Effects on Human Operators Of Hand-Held Radios.” Microwave Journal 47.6 (June 2004): 22-42. Print. Kohli, D. R., Sachdev, A., and H.S.Vats. “Cell Phones and Tumor: Still in No Man's Land.” Indian Journal of Cancer 46.1 (Jan-Mar. 2009): 5-12. Print. Moulder, J.E., Foster, K.R., Erdreich, L.S., and J.P. McNamee. “Mobile Phones, Mobile Phone Base Stations and Cancer: A Review.” International Journal of Radiation Biology 81.3 (2005): 189-203. Print. Walsh, Bryan. “Cell-Phone Safety.” Time 175.10 (15 Mar. 2010): 47-49. Print. Read More