For some people, cell phones have become an essential part of their lives.
Dominique Woodard, a University junior, estimates that she uses her cell phone nearly six hours each day and routinely checks her phone for e-mails and messages.
“There will be times where I’m studying and I’ll try to turn it off,” said Woodard, a sociology major, “but then I’ll go right back to checking my messages to see if anyone has texted me or anything.”
According to recent global studies, Woodard isn’t alone.
The International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, reported that there were nearly 5.3 billion mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide last year, including 940 million subscriptions to 3G services. The ITU also noted that access to mobile networks is now available to 90 percent of the world’s population and 80 percent of the population living in rural areas.
However, despite this increasing trend toward portable telecommunication devices, some studies have also suggested that these people may also have a significant risk for health problems, including an increased risk of brain cancer, cataracts and temporary sterility, among other health ailments.
To address this problem, Oregon Sen. Chip Shields (D-Portland) has introduced the controversial SB 679 to the Oregon State Legislature that, if passed, would prohibit retailers from selling or distributing cell phones that do not have a label warning consumers about the health risks associated with cell phone use.
The proposed warning label reads: “WARNING: This is a radio-frequency (RF), radiation-emitting device that has non-thermal biological effects for which no safety guidelines have yet been established. Controversy exists as to whether these effects are harmful to humans. Exposure to RF radiation may be reduced by limiting your use of this device and keeping it away from the head and body.”
Some of the representatives who have pushed to introduce the bill said they have no personal opinions on the matter but are eager for there to be an increased amount of public discussion on the issue.
“I’m a public health nurse, and the reason I signed onto the bill is because I would like to have a discussion on how radio frequencies are affecting us,” Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson said. “Maybe the biological effects are at such low levels that it has no effect on us at all, but I don’t have that information, and hopefully that’s the type of information that we’ll get.”
Those in favor of the bill say numerous studies have shown direct links between cell phones and health-related issues, such as cancer.
David Morrison, the owner of David Morrison Books in Portland, said he first began to conduct his own independent research on this issue when a telecommunications company installed a cell phone tower on his daughter’s school campus in Tualatin nearly three and a half years ago.
“The more research I did, the more shocked I was about how potentially devastating this technology is,” Morrison said. “It’s not just a public health hazard, but a public health emergency. They should be teaching this in schools; they teach about drugs, alcohol, tobacco, safe sex and all that stuff … but the school board is completely not interested in any of it. It’s just amazing.”
A literature review conducted in October 2009 by the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health found an association between cell phone use and tumor risk, especially brain tumor risk.
Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health, noted that “the association was stronger among those who used cell phones for 10 or more years, stronger on the side of the head in which the cell phone was used, and stronger in studies that employed better research methods and in those not funded by the telecommunications industry.”
However, not everyone agrees with these findings. The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association – The Wireless Association, an international nonprofit organization that represents wireless communications companies such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, said in an e-mail that several health organizations, including the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, concurred that “wireless devices are not a public health risk.”
In addition, a study conducted by the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology noted that studies conducted on the issue “have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature.”
Gretchen Groves, the communication manager of the American Cancer Society’s Oregon office, agrees.
“We think that further laboratory research should probably be done and that there has been no increase in Sweden, which was the first country to introduce cell phones,” Groves said. “Brain cancer incidents are actually flat in the U.S., so we haven’t experienced an increase.”
This news may provide some relief to those people who continue to use cell phones on a regular basis.
Although Woodard said she will continue to use her cell phone regularly, she said she would possibly reconsider her decision if the health risks prove to be significant.
“If it’s something that would be considered miniscule, then I probably wouldn’t take the precautions to reduce my cell phone risk, but if it’s life-threatening or something in regards to that type of scenario, then yes, I would stop using my phone.”
However, others, like Morrison, are leaving nothing to chance. Morrison said he has taken certain precautions to reduce his exposure to radio frequencies in cell phones by getting rid of his cell phone and relying on his land-line phones to communicate with people.
“I think it’s an uphill battle to try and get the message out,” Morrison said. “People are basically in a wireless trance. You talk to people about it and you see their eyes gloss over, and they just don’t care. They don’t want to hear about it.”
[email protected]