Subject: NY Times Story on cell phone safety (Weiner)..
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 123849 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
........BEWARE!!! Once again the fox is being asked to guard the
chickens... The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has entered into
an agreement with the telecom industry to study the health effects of
cellular phones.....?!?!?!
......To paraphrase the words of a, now too frequently seen, AT&T ad:
What do they not understand about the words: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.....???
Notice the old "peer review" stall at the end of the article.....
Really... contrary to Bob's observation below, I think this is a pretty
sad, shallow story...... The New York Times, of all people, ought to do
more than just quote the two sides -- like they were a couple of
"talking heads" on television..... Woodward and Bernstein: Where are
you???
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website
...................People are more important than profits.................
..........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????..........
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:39:33 -0700
From: Bob Weiner
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: NY Times Story on cell phone safety
Hi Roy,
Here's a story the New York Times ran today on cell phone safety. The
Dallas Morning News ran a shorter version of this story today also. I
was surprised to see the coverage.
Bob Weiner
October 26, 1999
Questions but No Answers About Cell Phones
By WARREN E. LEARY
WASHINGTON -- Almost since there have been cellular
phones, there have been worries that the radio waves
they emit might cause brain cancer. Yet despite years of
studies, no one has established a solid link, and the industry
has long sought to reassure the
public that the technology is perfectly safe.
But as the little phones become ubiquitous, the questions
persist. News reports suggesting that their microwave radio
emissions may be harmful are raising the issue anew among
consumers. And public health authorities and other experts say a
few recent studies signal the need for more research to resolve
an issue that affects hundreds of millions of users worldwide.
"The available science does not allow us
to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they
are unsafe," the Federal Food and Drug Administration, which
regulates devices that emit radiation, said in a statement last
week. It emphasized, however, that the available evidence "does
not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the
use of mobile phones."
Experts say they hope a worldwide research effort, including
studies under way in the United States, Europe, Australia and
elsewhere, will resolve the matter.
One program that did not, despite six years of study and $27
million in spending, was just completed by Wireless Technology
Research, an independent research group in Washington under the
sponsorship of the wireless phone industry's trade association.
This project supported studies by private research organizations
and universities, and while it generally found little to link
cellular phone use and cancer, some of the
research suggested possible correlations that Federal health
officials said should be clarified with further study.
And the director of the project, Dr. George L. Carlo, put
those concerns more strongly, saying, "The industry should stop
saying cell phones are safe without qualification when there is
no proof they are and give consumers all the information so they
can make intelligent choices."
The F.D.A. announced last week that it had signed a letter of
intent with the cellular industry association to look into a
possible collaborative project to follow up on clues from the
earlier program. "We want to see
if researchers can replicate and explain some findings from
work previously done by Wireless Technology Research," said
Sharon Snider, an F.D.A. spokeswoman.
The agency said these findings needed further attention:
•A hospital study that compared brain cancer patients and a
similar group without brain cancer found no statistically
significant association between cell-phone use and a group of
brain cancers known as glioma. But when 20 types of glioma were
considered separately, an association was found
between phone use and one rare form. Puzzlingly, however, this
risk appeared to decrease rather than increase with greater
mobile phone use.
•When a variety of cultured animal cells were exposed to
radiation from cell phones to see if it caused cancer-inducing
genetic damage, only one test battery, known as a micronucleus
assay, produced a negative result
on one type of human white blood cells. But these changes were
seen only after 24 hours of microwave exposure, raising the
possibility that the damage stemmed from heating and not direct
radiation exposure.
Some critics have assailed the industry and government
regulators for continuing to say the phones appear safe while
awaiting further studies. They say health authorities and the
industry should do more to warn consumers of the dangers and
limit exposure to the suspect radio signals.
These critics have acquired a new ally from an unexpected
quarter -- Dr. Carlo, who heads the group that carried out the
industry-sponsored research program.
A lawyer with a Ph.D. in pathology, Dr. Carlo says the
industry is wrong in assuring the public that cell phones are
safe and that no immediate action is necessary. Research results
produced through his group and by
others, although not conclusive, raise enough alarms to advise
consumers to distance themselves from cell phones, he says.
"You don't have to wait for absolute proof of a hazard before
taking action," he said.
Consumers, he said, can limit their exposure to radio
emissions from phone antennas in the following ways: using
small, wired headsets with built-in microphones to keep the
phones a safe distance away; fully extending the antenna to keep
it as far away as possible; holding the antenna at least 2
inches from the head, the distance radiation would
normally penetrate into the brain; limiting the length of
calls, and not allowing children to use the phones, since their
lower skull density allows greater radio infusion.
Dr. Carlo, whose research group goes out of business in
December when its mandate ends, said he broke with the industry
stance when it did not agree to his suggestion to sponsor an
extensive after-marketing research program to continually gather
data on possible adverse effects from cell phones. He accused
the industry of trying to narrow the focus of research and to
"manage" adverse information to protect sales.
Earlier this month, Dr. Carlo sent letters to 30 companies in
the cellular industry, saying that adverse effects had been
found in a number of studies and that he was "extremely
frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been
taken by the wireless industry to protect
consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety."
Dr. Carlo asked for the companies' help in publishing a
consumer information package based on the findings, to be
marketed by a company with which he is affiliated. He said in an
interview that he simply wanted to produce consumer material
that the industry would not.
JoAnne Basile, a vice president with the cellular association
who worked with Dr. Carlo, says her group does not fully
understand his change of
heart or his criticism. Results of the research group's
studies have been summarized orally at meetings by Dr. Carlo and
some material has been presented to the F.D.A., she said, but
none of the work has yet to be
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals so other
scientists can review it and comment. Ms. Basile questioned how
such results could be used to fashion policies or
recommendations when it has not been
scrutinized by scientists at large.
"This group was set up so that it would be independent and the
industry would have no control over it or the research results,"
she said, "The research belongs to the researchers, and it's up
to them to publish it."
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com