The Story Behind Cell Phone Radiation Research 560
XopherMV writes "A study by Lai and Singh, published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics, found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards. The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted.
The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.
According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai's research might cause even before the study was released. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public.
To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh's findings although half of about 200 studies say there is a biological effect from cell phone radiation.
Read more in UW Columns."
Original paper author has moved on (Score:5, Interesting)
P.S. I see this study was done at my alma-matter, the University of Washington. I wonder if my old roommate Jim Oliver might have been affected, since he did handstands from our 7th floor balcony railing [komar.org] - maybe he should have been wearing a tin-foil hat? ;-)
Land line studies... (Score:2, Interesting)
The research is a troll (Score:4, Interesting)
However, a human is NOT a rat. Our skulls are thicker, our neurons interconnect differently, there is different bloodflow around the cranial cavity and the meninges is more complex in humans. We are not looking for research related to biochemistry, we are looking at physical abstraction.
I would give this research a second look if it were performed on primates, but a rat just isnt a proper comparitive test.
Brown and Williamson (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of the internal cigarette documents that came to light in the tobacco trials. I wonder if there will be enough people injured to have massive class action suits.
Althoguh from what I understand the new digital cells are nothing like analog phones for the amount of energy they put out. I know when I'm in an analog only area my phone goes flat in less than a day, compared to 3-4 days when I have digital service. So anecdotally I'm seeing maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of the power output with digital.
Re:So ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it sounds weird, but when I was at University of Missouri-Rolla, I did some work at the nuclear reactor on campus. There is far less radiation inside the reactor building (not inside the reactor core itself) than there is outside on the hockey puck (a big concrete circle in the middle of campus). So, if you are worried about radiation, just move into a nuclear reactor building.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Risks of nearby cell towers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sugar company lobbyists basically tried to label the WHO as idiots and liars when they published reports that recommended decreased sugar consumption as means of increasing cardiovascular health and reducing obesity.
I'm not even going to get in on the fast-food industry.
This is just yet another example of the corporations exerting their stranglehold on US policy to up profits, damn the consequences.
It's really amazing the kind of short-sightedness they exhibit, considering that consumers, and by extension, healthy consumers, are their prime income creating resource.
Re:So ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at all the chemicals you eat, drink or breath everyday.
Look at the stress that urban life induces.
Frankly, I don't see why I should die from a radiation exposure whereas I spent most Sat. evenings actively dancing (thus gasping even more) drunk in smokey discos...
So this story is FUDdy. They don't even answer the ultimate question, they just claim there is a dispute. Very useful.
I don't buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
So you really have to resort to some fancy hypotheses to rationalize this. Well maybe, just maybe, there is some kind of a resonance of the current through an ion channel (although I'm not entirely sure that this is even plausible), which somehow alters its coupling to some intracellular kinase or other second messenger system, which activates an enzyme that happens to produce free radicals, and those break DNA. But I'd have to see some definitive evidence before I take that kind of hypothesis seriously.
The point is that "microwaves damage DNA" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. "Some studies support it and some do not" simply doesn't qualify.
I'm skeptical of "DNA break" assays, anyway. There is a long history of people finding DNA damage by this and that, and others failing to reproduce the result. It's easy to break DNA--you can even break it by rough handling.
Not to sound alarmist... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.ht
Everybody's all up in arms about cell phones, but if you're parked in front of a desktop you might possibly have at least as much to worry about from other sources.
Well-balanced site which gives several takes on the issue:
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/emf.htm#dangerous [ehso.com]
My old cell phone hurt my head... (Score:3, Interesting)
My first phone was an analog Nokia. I don't recall the model but I still have it here someplace. It took me awhile to realize the cause, but every time I used it, I'd get a headache and a weird sensation on that side of my head. A tingly hot feeling, almost felt like a hairdryer when it's too close to your head. Also slightly scattered in my thinking. Like it was hard to concentrate.
This was before I ever heard a peep about even the possiblity of radiation being a problem so it wasn't in my imagination. I never felt anything like that outside of using that phone. Never happend again after I stopped using it either (about 7 years ago)
After the realization, I was like Kirk and his communicator. I'd say something quickly and then hold it away from my head as far as I could while still being able to hear. My calls also got amazingly terse.
I hung on to it thinking of getting it tested one day. How could (where would) you go about measuring the radiation?
Re:Risks of nearby cell towers? (Score:2, Interesting)
The important scientific reviews in the UK, the Stewart report, and a more recent one by the NRPB - don't acknowledge any demonstrable risk from masts, although they do give guidance e.g. they should be placed away from schools, as a 'precaution'.
Part of the problem is that the actual EM exposure from a cell tower, even at close range, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the exposure from even very occasional cell phone use.
Because of the exceedingly low level, any health effect is likely to be very small. Additionally, because exposure from phones is so much more significant, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to design a study which isn't hopelessly confounded.
The problem is at least partly to do with how people understand risk. Psychologically, people who choose to do something (e.g. drive) tend to underestimate the risk involved, yet those who don't choose to do something (e.g. live near a phone mast) tend to over-estimate it. I've been to a few meetings about phone masts - and never once despite all the concern over mast radiation did anyone ever consider the possibiltiy that the phones may be more risky.
Re:I wonder. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, try this: find either an RF engineer in college, or one working in a cell phone company. Take them out to a bar, and ask them their honest opinion. If they're in college, they might tell you that cell phones emit much less energy than is considered even minimally harmful. Or they'll compare a cell phone to normal widespread devices, like a microwave. Talk to someone in the workplace, and they'll most likely tell you that cell phone companies go overboard on their RF testing before releasing new phones, in order to address these largely unwarranted concerns.
Re:I wonder. (Score:1, Interesting)
that should be
but this sounds remarkably similar to the way tobacco companies currently behave [sfgate.com]
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I'm not at home or at the office, I don't want people trying to reach me (I'm either in a meeting or traveling, and I don't like taking calls during either of those activities), and in the 8 years I've had my current job, I've had zero cases where being reachable on-the-road was critical. So no need for a mobile.
I do own one now (and I'll have to admit it comes in handy sometimes), but keep it switched off by default (total usage: about 10 minutes last year).
Re:I wonder. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lai says there have been about 200 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone-related radiation. If you put all the ones that say there is a biological effect on one side and those that say there is no effect on the other, you'd have two piles roughly equal in size. The research splits about 50-50.
"That, in and of itself, is alarming," Lai says. But it's not the whole story. If you divide up the same 200 studies by who sponsored the research, the numbers change.
"When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's about three to one--three out of every four papers shows an effect," Lai says. "Then, if you look at the industry-funded research, it's almost opposite--only one out of every four papers shows an effect."
That's of course, according to Lai.
Re:So ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really - reactors emit very little radiation beyond the reactor vessel / primary containment; amd teh secondary is an effective shield from natural radiation.
A nuke submariner recieves a smaller dose that an airline flight crew or a Navy pilot - though paradoxically he wears a dosimeter while aviators don't.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Its current status is about the same as cold fusion. Right now we have a bunch of scattered hard-to-explain and hard-to-reproduce results in the literature, mostly in minor journals, and it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. It could easily all be artifact. What is needed to give this field some credibility is some real progress on the question of mechanism.
Re:Trivial solution ... no, incorrect assumption (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to actually test for the situation, not assume that making a change will solve the problem.
One relatively likely solution is using a hollow tube instead of a wire for the earpiece; sound travels fine from phone to ear that way. And the microphone for voice-to-phone should (test!) be electrically isolated from the phone's amplifier.
Heck -- just put optical transducers in, use a little light guide instead of a wire for the entire headset. Problem solved.
But maybe making a safe headset would be like making a safe cigarette -- the lawyers would never let it happen if it could be considered an admission of liability.
Some info which is even more disconcerting (Score:1, Interesting)
Currently they rolling this out in Silicon Valley itself; and have managed to sneak this by (without School Board approval) up until litterally one week ago in the Fremont Union High School District. But they have been doing this nation wide.
The bottom line here is that, if you have kids, you NEED to make certain that your school doesn't have a microwave transmitter on your site, if you are concerned about this. There is little to no oversite after a tower goes in, and your children may be exposed to levels of radiation far higher than the levels that these studies have seen damage at.
The Cell Phone companies have become extremely adept at figuring out how to get these towers onto school sites, without requiring public input.
Furthermore, according to section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunciations Act, environmental and health concerns CANNOT be a consideration in turning down their request for a tower. It is against the law for the School Board to even discuss health effects. Nor can you sue the Cell Phone companies, or the School Board later, if your child develops cancer.
If you are in the Silicon Valley area, check out: www.protectedschools.org [protectedschools.org]
The site is brand new, but more research and a discussion forum will be on line shortly.
Full Disclosure: I am associated with the above site.
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an oncologist in my family who uses her cell phone this way. I don't think she would claim that the evidence regarding harmfulness of cell phone radiation is conclusive. I think she would just point out that taking the necessary step to protect yourself (buying and using a headset with the phone) is not difficult or expensive, and the potential risk you are weighing against the cost of the headset (brain damage) is pretty high.
Re:Risks of nearby cell towers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microwave radiation follows the same propogation rules as light radition including long wavelengths. I made the statement so you could easly compare a easly detected ratation and compare it's levels with an invisable radiation of the electromagnetic spectrum.
If I build a campfire, I can sit several feet from it and be warmed by it from it's thermal radiation. Someone walking between me and the fire will block the radiation and I notice the cold. If they built a huge bonfire, say they have a house catch fire, I can feel the heat at a greater distance. I may get the same warm feeling a couple houses distant from the fire. The house fire is several orders of magnitude larger than a campfire. By increasing my distance from the fire, I can keep my heat exposure to a comfortable level.
Now how far are you from a cell phone stuck against your head and how far are you from the radiating antenna on the top of a cell tower. The tower radiates more power by a couple orders of magnitude, but the guy on the other side of the cubicle wall is hitting you with more power than the tower. It's less power, but a whole lot closer.
There are not too much research on the negative health effects of nearby cell towers, because they measure the signal strength in the area and it is orders of magnitude less strong than the radiation from the phone used by the kids mom in the car. The cell tower health effects are in a background level compared to going to a movie or riding a city bus where somone close grabs his ringing phone.
The study would be inconclusive because there is no control environment without cell phone end users in the area of a tower.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:4, Interesting)
(OK, lung cancer exists, but what do you expect when you fill them with toxins)
Why 10 years later, still such little proof? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cell phones (particularly digital phones) operate at the gigahertz range. Microwaves are a natural frequency to travel through space with minimal loss or interference (one reason why seti@home looks at those frequencies). So do microwave ovens. The reason why microwaves work is because the energy they pump into the microwave get absorbed into and excite the water molecules, producing heat. My 600 watt microwave takes 2 minutes to heat up a cup of water to the boiling point, and that's in a space designed to trap and to preserve the entire microwave energy. A cell phone peaks at about 4 watts and radiates the energy in every direction, most of it not to return to the operator of that phone and if it all did, would take probably 5 hours to heat that same cup of water. Given that the average human body contains many many many more cups of water than what I put in my microwave, any extra heat produced by 4 watts of microwave energy is easily transformed and radiated away from the skin.
In order to damage DNA it usually requires far more energy as it means breaking the molecular bonds. UV-B on up to XRays for example have sufficient engery to penetrate the skin with the energy required to break those molecular bonds. UV-A is not sufficient to cause skin cancer, but UB-B is. If the entire electromagnetic spectrum is sufficient to cause cancer, we might as well live in a lead box, because we'd all be F**KED before we even got to puberty and the entire gene pool would be done for in a single generation.
Although I can't dismiss the possibility of microwaves giving someone cancer, it's far more likely to do nothing more than give you that warm fuzzy feeling of having one.
I can prove that elephants don't exist! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that I am a scientist (Score:2, Interesting)
This is totally unscientific, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things:
Cell phones emit a pretty powerful signal. Speakers near the phone can be modulated on an incoming call. Nothing else I own does that. And this happens when the speakers are off. (And yes, the frequencies in use have a lot to do with that and that's my point!)
My second accidential observation is even more spooky. Back when I was short of cash, I fixed a microwave that was broken, but was afraid to use it without a way to be sure it was still safe. Someone got me one of those little microwave radiation detectors, sold at Radio Shack. It's a little handheld device with no batteries, just a flat antenna you point near the microwave.
Happened to be testing a friends new microwave because the cheap ones are pretty loose in front. (Don't put your face near the glass on one of the low end models, unless you don't enjoy the current state of your frontal lobes.) The cell phone was nearby and received a call. I could hear the *click* as the needle went off the high end of the scale. --That has made me think a little harder about this since it happened a few months back.
Of course, the windings in the meter could have been responding as the speakers did. Either way, that's enough RF saturation to be considered unsafe by Amateur radio standards.
I agree with the eariler poster that pointed out we used to wear radioactive watches and X-ray our feet. My gut says we are going to find something wrong with the phones in the future.
My symptoms, after longer cell use, are ringing in the ears. I don't use my cell as much as I used to and my right ear will, on occasion, just start ringing for no reason. That's the ear I most often choose when I am not thinking about things and just answer the phone.
Ok, so that's three things, whatever.
Re:Half of studies...? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the problem with sound-bytes. If you actually read the article, you'd notice that a lot of the article is about industry tainting of research through a carrot-and-stick approach. Lai notes that if you split up the studies into publicly and industry funded studies, you see that 75% of publicly funded studies show a problem and 80% of industry funded studies show no problem.
In other words, 75% of studies with no obvious pro-industry conflict of interest say that it's an issue. Not that it matters for those who don't want to change their lives; merely 5% of researchers (and a host of people who aren't climate scientists) dissenting has been good enough for people who don't want to act on global warming.
Bah, the other poster's elephants analogy is a better counter-argument anyway.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I am not a physycist so I am sure that someone will correct me....
Now the thing that is critical is how much energy we are absorving from the phone. The frequency for microwave ovens is 2450MHz. this is the frequency where the water gets most excited by the radiation. Now you can and should argue that we have lots of other molecules in our body and they will all absorve at different frequencies. However we contain alot of water... If you ask my uninformed opinion I would rather have a mobile than bluetooth strapped to my head.
I can not answer how the power will come into it. Is 2450MHz at low power worse than 1800MHz at high power..?
Maybe someone informed can comment.
bs is bad (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It's not like cold fusion at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary, it is very similar. Some people claimed to reproduce the results, others could not. It is more accurate to say that they could not be reliably reproduced. Here is a recent DOE review [peswiki.com]
Note also that it is a lot easier to get positive results published than negative. So when I hear, "half the studies support it, and half don't," that tells me that it is very hard indeed to reproduce.
Furthermore, if you had read the article, you'll see that researchers are explicitly facing harassment by the industry. Many are being driven out because of this harassment.
By and large, industry has little power to drive anybody out of research. But to get continued grant funding for something as improbable as this, a researcher would have to show clear progress in elucidating the mechanism.
As for industry, I am sure that they are concerned about possible public relations or liability fallout from such research. But they probably also sincerely believe that is nonsense--because in terms of known mechanisms, it makes little sense.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Faq to Peruse (Score:2, Interesting)
I know a woman with e-magnetic field sensebility (Score:3, Interesting)
She also senses mobile radiocell handshakes nearby (5-7 meters) and has a habbit of anouncing a phonecall just a second before a mobile rings. Quite irritating for people not knowing this/ believing her and funny to watch aswell.
However, her life is hell most of the time. People usually don't believe her and think she's crazy. She's having a hard time asking the neighbor that lives above her (a copmuter geek) to switch of his CRT when he's not using it. Basically she's one of those candidates who would be best of sleeping in a faraday cage.
Re:Biological effects on chick embryo (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't it? During a coronal mass ejection directed at earth, proton radiation (and the associated induced muon radiation from subsequent "air showers [lanl.gov]")spiraling in along the magnetic field lines of the planet often cause polar flights to be rerouted (flights over the south Atlantic anomaly are also rerouted) in order to avoid relatively large doses to flight crews and passengers.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, take a bunch of rings (a-la antracene) but stagger them in a meta-config rather than para. If you have about 6-7 of them you get a helix. The resulting molecule exists in two enantiomers, but none of the atoms in the molecule are sterogenic. In theory if you could grab both ends with tweezers you could stress all the bonds slightly and pull the ends past each other to convert between the enantiomers.
However, this is more of a curiousity and doesn't really have anything to do with protein structure. Proteins certainly can take a variety of shapes, but they are not stereoisomers (you'd need to use D-amino acids to make you protein at the very least).
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
What I disagree with is the statement that molecular bonds cannot be broken in much more complex molecules by weak radiation. With such a large structure as a chain of DNA or some proteins, the microwaves could set up harmful oscillations and harmoinc motion that could magnify the effect of the radiation, and snap the chain in a weak spot.
If I glue 3 or 4 bricks together with mortar, and put them in a field, I can prove that a 9.0 earthquake probably won't break them apart. Now if I put a few million bricks together in a building, all bets are off. Kinda scary.
Here's another example of harmonics in action. http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/darnold/
Considering that your typical molecule of DNA could easily contain millions of atoms, there is plenty of room for waves to build up and cause damage. If you want the Nobel prize, try mathematically modelling THAT.
Bork!
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It must depend on the phone company. I had SBC.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Using stem cells to regrow heart tissue may work someday.
From what I hear, a stem cell for heart muscle has yet to be identified. This is a huge problem in healing infarcts.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:3, Interesting)
and open-pit mining and smog...
SB