![](3D"images/shim.gif")
=
![](3D"images/030501_mark_1.jpg")
=
Complacency about possible health effects o=
f using cell phones may be hazardous to the long-term business health of =
wireless service providers
=
March 5,2001
Discuss cell-phone safety issues in our fo=
rums. By Meg McGinity <=
font class=3D"body">The wireless industry is facing a dilemma that tobacc=
o companies can identify with all too well. The source of the dilemma, of co=
urse, is product safety. A growing number of researchers and consumer adv=
ocates are pointing to evidence that suggests a direct link between use o=
f cell phones and health problems that include one of the scariest of all=
diseases: brain cancer. But there are just as many experts on the indust=
ry side that say their evidence shows no such links. Here's the kicker: Neith=
er side will be able to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt for at =
least a few years. That's how long it will take for long-term use of cell=
phones by the general public to yield meaningful data for epidemiologica=
l studies. Leif Salford, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of=
Lund in Sweden, has been quoted as calling cell phone usage "the world's=
largest biological experiment ever" =97 an experiment that now involves =
450 million users worldwide, including more than 110 million in the Unite=
d States. Revenues from those users now total more than $45 billion a yea=
r in the U.S. alone. The multibillion-dollar question for the wireless indust=
ry is this: To what extent would manufacturers and service providers be h=
eld accountable and liable for damages IF (and that's a big IF on purpose=
) a link between cell phone usage and health damage is ever established? =
Is there anything that industry players can do now to minimize that poten=
tial liability? The answers to both questions aren't exactly soothing =97 esp=
ecially when the inevitable parallels to the tobacco industry are drawn.<=
/font> The =
tobacco industry is facing hundreds of billions of dollars in liability c=
laims stemming from lawsuits related to the adverse health effects from u=
sing their products. Tobacco companies are on the hook even though their =
products had been in use for decades before any link between smoking and =
health damage had been established by the scientific community, and even =
after the companies began printing warnings on their products, which they=
started doing back in 1965. The wireless industry could start to market "saf=
er" (as in lower power) phones and other equipment, such as headsets, tha=
t reduce users' exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR). It could iss=
ue warnings about potential health effects caused by extensive and prolon=
ged use of cell phones. It also could pony up for vast research efforts a=
imed at finally nailing down definitive answers to the cell phone safety =
question. The problem is, doing any or all of these things won't necessarily =
limit liability. And the argument could be made that such steps would imp=
ly that the industry believes internally that a health risk exists =97 th=
e smoking gun that eventually nailed the tobacco industry. =
"Their worst-case=
scenario is if someone can prove that the cell phones are harmful and th=
at the manufacturers have always known they were harmful," says Jim Speta=
, assistant professor of law at Northwestern University.
Proof of compliance =
with federal standards governing RFR emissions might not be enough to war=
d off liability, say some legal experts. "A jury would want to know if th=
e industry did enough to educate itself about the possible risks," says a=
litigation attorney who requested anonymity. "In a case where there is e=
levated risk =97 as with brain tumors =97 there is an elevated duty on th=
e part of the industry because the danger is that much higher." The apparent =
game plan now for the wireless industry is to do very little, and to do i=
t as a unified entity. The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Assoc=
iation is the point organization for both service providers and manufactu=
rers regarding cell phone safety issues. Which leads to this question: Is=
the CTIA doing enough to protect industry interests on the cell phone sa=
fety issue? Cell phone safety timeline. No smoking gun <=
font class=3D"body"> "After a substanti=
al amount of research, scientists and governments around the world contin=
ue to reaffirm that there is no public health threat from the use of wire=
less phones." This statement, from CTIA President and CEO Tom Wheeler, su=
ms up the CTIA's stance on cell phone safety. In fact, no rigorous, definitiv=
e proof exists that cell phones cause tingling in the head, as some suspe=
ct, let alone brain cancer. But evidence pointing to a link has been emer=
ging for the past few years. The UK's Department of Health said last year=
that it saw evidence that RFR emissions from cell phones can cause "subt=
le biological effects" that could lead to disease, and it advised limitin=
g the use of cell phones by children. The French government also has warn=
ed against children using mobile phones. Also in 2000, researchers from G=
ermany published a study claiming that cell phone users were three times =
more likely than others to develop eye cancer. Everyone =97 including service =
providers and manufacturers =97 agrees more research is needed. But littl=
e of that research is being done in the U.S., and nearly all of that is f=
inanced by the wireless industry itself. The research that does get done can =
get shrouded in doubt cast by those on either side of the debate. The mos=
t visible critic of the wireless industry regarding its safety research, =
George Carlo, has had his own credibility questioned by the industry, whi=
ch portrays Carlo as an opportunist at best and a con artist at worst. In=
dustry critics counter that at least one manufacturer =97 Motorola =97 ha=
s knowingly suppressed potentially damaging research. Others point to wha=
t they call a cozy relationship between the wireless industry and federal=
regulators as evidence that the industry is more interested in protectin=
g itself than its customers. There's enough dirt on both sides of the fence t=
o suggest that the motives, if not the veracity, of at least some players=
on each side can be questioned. The battle started in 1994, when University =
of Washington bioengineering professor Henry Lai and colleague Narendra S=
ingh found DNA strands in rats' brains were broken by RFR exposure. Cell =
phones emit the same kind of radiation, although at different frequencies=
than those tested by Lai and Singh. R=
esearch biologist Jerry Phillips was doing testing, paid for by Motorola,=
at Pettis Memorial Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda, Calif=
=2E, during the 1990s. Phillips says he duplicated the Lai and Singh resu=
lts of DNA breakage in 1996 on human cells. He alleges that Motorola aske=
d him not to publish the results, and that the company cut off its dealin=
gs with him when he refused that request. Motorola's response to the Lai-Sing=
h research, according to a memo leaked in late 1996 by a company insider,=
was to "war-game" spin control with the help of PR colossus Burson Marst=
eller. Motorola subsequently has said that it didn't discourage Phillips =
from publishing his results, but that it told him his findings needed cla=
rification. The company continues to stand by its statement that no one h=
as validated the Lai-Singh results to date. "What do you expect from these fo=
lks?" Phillips counters. "There are a number of studies indicating change=
s in DNA structure as a result of exposure to RFR. They just want to igno=
re these studies." Click here for technical deta=
ils on the health effects of radiation. Dr. Carlo, I presume If there's anything that captures the shady =
essence of the cell phone safety debate, it's the story of the Wireless T=
echnology Research program and Dr. George Carlo. After the first question=
s about cell phone safety were raised in 1993, the CTIA ponied up $25 mil=
lion to set up the Scientific Advisory Group (which became the WTR). The =
CTIA selected Carlo to run the operation. In setting up WTR, the CTIA said th=
e program would operate independently of the wireless industry. It emerge=
d, though, that WTR, CTIA and Motorola regularly communicated with one an=
other. Critics say WTR produced little research before shutting down afte=
r six years. Carlo now says that two WTR studies turned up links to cancers =
and brain tumors. Carlo also says he took findings from one study to CTIA=
's board in February 1999. Afterward, he claims, CTIA circumvented him an=
d directly contacted the researcher responsible for that study, Joshua Mu=
scat. Carlo further alleges that some d=
ata in the study was altered, and that the altered data formed the basis =
for a report published in December 2000 by the Journal of the American Me=
dical Association that concluded that cell phones are safe to use. Shortl=
y after, the New England Journal of Medicine pushed up its publishing dat=
e of another study that also supported the safety of cell phones. "The trut=
h is, there have been seven epidemiological studies, and five of those sh=
ow a significant increase in the risk of tumors," Carlo says. "Two of tho=
se seven do not show an increase in tumors and those two were not looking=
at rare tumors." But while Carlo has been busy raising questions about the =
CTIA and its research efforts, others have been raising questions about C=
arlo. Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, points out that before his =
tenure at WTR, Carlo collected big bucks fronting for cancer-causing diox=
in industries years back, in a role similar to the one he played with the=
cellular industry before the falling out. "For the six years that he was an =
employee of the CTIA, Carlo got very little done," Slesin says. "And the =
two research items he is pointing to now are not on the top of lists of w=
hat should be studied." <=
font class=3D"body">Carlo contends that he was misused by the CTIA and no=
w is being martyred. "I feel a deep sense of responsibility and regret th=
at the good work done by the WTR has now been used as a basis to manipula=
te the consumer and the government and the media," he says. "They used th=
e WTR to set up the consumer, and now they are using me as the guy they h=
ang in the town square." Researched outFor all the warts on Carlo and th=
e WTR, that project's work remains the benchmark of U.S. research into ce=
ll phone safety =97 and the wireless industry's first line of defense of =
its product. "Besides the FDA with its little bit of research, our little body =
of research and the National Institute of Cancer's little body of researc=
h, there is almost no funding for this type of research other than what i=
s funded by the industry," says Gregory Lotz, a radiation research offici=
al at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Last June, a=
nother CTIA-funded program was announced, called the Cooperative Research=
and Development Agreement (CRADA). The Food and Drug Administration is o=
ffering recommendations and oversight for work under CRADA, but the CTIA =
has the last word on which projects go forward. Experiments for CRADA wil=
l follow up only on the health risks that Carlo has said were suggested b=
y two studies in the WTR research that are being publicized. That will le=
ave many other questions unanswered, he says. The relationship between the FD=
A and the CTIA is drawing criticism from some outside the wireless indust=
ry. Those critics assert that one reason the industry has been able to av=
oid directly addressing the cell phone safety issue is that it has some d=
eep connections within the federal government's power structure. Those connec=
tions have their roots in wireless technology itself. Much of the radio f=
requency technology underpinning wireless communications was developed by=
various arms of the U.S. military. "The wireless industry is extremely influ=
ential," says Libby Kelley, executive director of the Council on Technolo=
gy Wireless Impact, a nonprofit advocacy group that is involved in cell p=
hone safety issues. "That's why we've been unable to address this as an i=
ssue. The government, through political leadership, is cooperating with t=
he telecom industry." The fact that the CTIA is funding the research casts C=
RADA in a dubious light, say other critics. "It's the ultimate conflict o=
f interest," says Ross Adey, a professor at the University of California =
at Riverside who specializes in RFR research. Business as usual=
That kind =
of criticism rankles regulators. "We have exerted our best efforts to do =
what we can to obtain the best scientific data for the continued assessme=
nt of the possibility of adverse health effects from wireless phones and =
RF exposures," says Russell Owen, chief of the radiation biology branch o=
f the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health and FDA point pers=
on for the CRADA project. The fact that the FDA is working with the CTIA =
on this research is business as usual, he adds. "It is the normal course =
of regulatory affairs to rely on data generated by the industry," Owen sa=
ys. =
The FDA's role in determining the safety of cell phones remains less than=
fully defined. Regulation of the wireless industry typically falls under=
the purview of the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC mandates t=
hat wireless phones comply with standards =97 like the 1.6 watts per kilo=
gram specific absorption rate (SAR) standard. The agency, which reviews a=
nd records the paperwork submitted by the manufacturers on their testing =
procedures, will soon be spot-checking phones to make sure they comply wi=
th this standard. But at the end of the day, the FCC is only an enforcer =
of the standards, looking to other agencies =97 especially the FDA =97 to=
determine if such levels are safe, says Kwok Chan, a scientist in the FC=
C's office of engineering and technology. The federal government is still try=
ing to sort the jurisdictions out. The General Accounting Office is now a=
uditing the state and cost of research at the request of Sen. Joe Lieberm=
an, D.-Conn. The roles and responsibilities of federal agencies including=
the FDA, the FCC, the National Cancer Institute and the Environmental Pr=
otection Agency are being studied, along with CRADA, says John Findore, a=
ssistant director of the GAO. That agency was originally requested to loo=
k at the validity of research on the issue, but instead will confine its =
investigation to cost issues surrounding research projects involving fede=
ral agencies. A report is due in May. <=
/font> Waiting in the wings <=
p>There might be =
a tendency within the wireless industry to view the lack of progress made=
on the research front as a "no news is good news" development. "Our posi=
tion is that the research out there has not found a discernible link betw=
een cell phones and brain tumors," says Andrea Linsky, a spokeswoman for =
Verizon Wireless. "We support the call to conduct more research."<=
/p> That last p=
oint is critical, and it highlights one of the more troubling aspects of =
the current state of U.S. research in cell phone product safety. "If you =
are a lawyer representing the industry, the last thing you want to say is=
that you haven't done any studies in two years," says one legal expert w=
ho requested anonymity. "That would be a nightmare." For service providers lo=
oking to protect themselves against possible liability, being up-front ab=
out potential problems is the best course of action, says John Halebian, =
who practices consumer-protection law in New York. "If I was their attorn=
ey, I'd say, 'We are not aware of any dangers, but there has been some an=
ecdotal evidence that cell phone usage may be dangerous.' The better the =
disclosure, the more likely the limit on their liability." <=
font class=3D"body"> A likely proble=
m The problem here is with the word "likely." Just like everything else r=
elated to the cell phone safety issue, the legal ground on which the wire=
less industry will stand has little definition at this point. Questions a=
re many, and answers are almost nonexistent. But it's clear that litigators a=
re starting to line up for a chance at taking on the wireless industry on=
product safety. Michael Allweiss, an attorney based in New Orleans, is h=
andling a case charging companies with selling mobile phones they knew we=
re dangerous and seeking reimbursement to users who have bought head sets=
for protection from radiation. The case not only survived a January dism=
issal challenge but also gained momentum, when the judge overseeing the c=
ase ruled that the FDA has taken little action on mandating cell phone sa=
fety rules. That ruling is now being appealed by the wireless industry. Allwe=
iss also represents Michael Murray, who claims his work in the 1990s test=
ing cell phones for Motorola gave him two brain tumors. Although the Murr=
ay case is being litigated under workman's compensation law, a victory wo=
uld boost pending and future lawsuits on the product safety front, say at=
torneys. Previous similar cases against Motorola either have been withdrawn, =
usually for lack of funding, or thrown out of court. Allweiss says that t=
rack record won't deter him. "Tobacco won many cases for many years," he =
says. "It doesn't mean the plaintiffs should have lost. It means that wha=
t they were doing to win wasn't accepted." The legal stakes in the cell phon=
e safety battle rose considerably in December, when high-profile attorney=
Peter Angelos jumped into the fray. Angelos brings the analogy to the to=
bacco industry full circle: He has successfully litigated suits against t=
he tobacco and asbestos industries, winning a reported $4.3 billion in se=
ttlements for the state of Maryland against the tobacco industry. Angelos=
, who owns the Baltimore Orioles baseball team, had said he wouldn't get =
involved in litigation against the wireless industry unless he felt he ha=
d a 90% chance of winning. <=
p>Angelos apparently believes that Christopher Newma=
n gives him that chance. Newman, a neurologist who has a brain tumor, bla=
mes his disease on his use of cell phones and has filed an $800 million l=
awsuit against Verizon Wireless, Motorola, Cellular One, the CTIA and the=
Telecommunications Industry Association. Angelos has filed to be co-coun=
sel in the Newman suit. More than 100 people with brain tumors have calle=
d attorneys in the case about participating in such a suit.=
The rumor mill op=
erated by wireless industry opponents is grinding at full tilt. According=
to one unsubstantiated story, one unnamed law firm has what it believes =
to be a memo showing that a cell phone manufacturer sliced 30% off the ra=
diation levels its phones registered before releasing its results.=
The indust=
ry so far remains steadfast in discounting such rumors. "We have confiden=
ce in the safety of our products, which are backed up by science," says N=
orman Sandler, director of global strategies at Motorola. "The claim of [=
the Newman] lawsuit and others like it are groundless."
Despite all the smok=
e emanating from both sides of the cell phone safety issue, one thing is =
certain: Litigators eyeing a huge potential payday will spend the next fe=
w years looking for the smoking gun that could send the wireless industry=
on an unwanted trip down Tobacco Road. =
Discuss cell-phone safety issues in our forums.
|
![](3D"images/mark.markets.header.gif")
![](3D"images/temp2.r4.c40.gif")
![](3D"images/temp2.nav.center.cube.gif"=)
![](3D"images/home.r08.c20.gif")
![](3D"images/tne.100.gif")
![](3D"images/shim.gif=){kind=spacer}
![](3D"images/home.r09.c20.gif")
![](3D"images/temp1.r27.c36.gif=)
![](=3D"images/temp1.r27.c36.gif")
![](3D"images/temp1.r27.c36.gif")
![](3D"images/temp1.r28.c35.gif")
![](3D"images/temp1.bullet.red.gif")