Science in the Triangle

A graphic depiction of radiofrequency (RF) radiation (picture via TopNews.in)

Cell phones continue to become more and more prevalent, but so does a debate in the scientific community as to whether they do more harm than good.

That’s why the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a subset of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences based in Research Triangle Park, is studying the effects of cell phone, or radiofrequency (RF), radiation on animals.

So far, there is no evidence to suggest any short- or long-term damage to humans, said Dr. Mike Wide, an NTP toxicologist involved in the study. There are two types of radiation, he said: ionizing and non-ionizing.

“Ionizing is what most people are familiar with,” Wide said. “Things like X-rays and nuclear bombs.” Ionizing radiation will strip electrons away from atoms and molecules and thus has the potential to cause ionic damage in tissue.

Meanwhile, non-ionizing radiation—which includes radiofrequencies—is much lower in intensity and does not endanger ions. It can heat things up, though.

“When the power level gets high enough, eventually the RF radiation energy starts to excite molecules and creates heat, like a microwave,” Wide said. “Increase someone’s body heat enough, and you’re eventually going to have a body of problems.”

This is called the thermal effect. Wide said although the potential for such damage exists, there is currently no reason to believe RF radiation could harm human tissue.

Not all his colleagues share this belief. Wide was part of a cell phone radiation expert panel that testified before Congress in 2009. Dr. Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust was another panelist.

Davis said the evidence clearly shows cell phones cause physiological harm in humans.

The thermal effect created by the phones can alter brain metabolism and glucose, she said. This could be especially detrimental to children, whose brains are still developing and who absorb twice as much radiation as adults.

There could be sexual side effects, too. Davis said there is a 50 percent reduction of sperm count in young men who keep cell phones in their pockets for four hours a day.

“Just by keeping it in your pocket, you exceed the FCC limit,” she said in reference to the Federal Communications Commission’s standard on cell phone radiation emission rates.

Currently, the maximum Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for commercial cell phones is 1.6 megawatts per kilogram (MW/kg), a number developed in 1996 on recommendations by top scientific agencies like the EPA and the FDA. This rate measures the amount of radiation that is absorbed over one gram of tissue when the phone is using its maximum power, explained Wide.

Phones are rarely using their maximum power and this SAR ceiling is well below the threshold for actual bodily harm from radiation, said Bruce Romano, associate chief of the FCC’s office of engineering and technology.

“It’s a safety mark intentionally set that low,” Romano said. “Artificially low, even.”

The phones, he said, would have to emit much more than 1.6 MW/kg of RF radiation to cause any acute human damage, so everything below that level is safe. Some mistakenly assume a SAR of 1.2 is safer than a SAR of 1.4; however, as long as they’re below 1.6, all SARs are equally safe, he said.

“If you’re moving under a 12 foot bridge, what’s the difference between a nine and ten foot truck?” Romano said. “They both fit under.”

Davis argues the best way to reduce the risk of harmful radiation is to use a head-set or turn on the speakerphone. She helped found the Global Campaign for Safer Cell Phones, along with CNN medical commentator Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

The campaign advises against regular use and carry of cell phones and advocates safer model designs. Yet, Romano is not sure better designs are the answer.

“At this point, they’ve probably done everything they can do design-wise,” he said. “The next thing would be to lower the power, but then it doesn’t work as well or you need more base stations.”

What Wide points out is that the FCC’s standards are based on protection from acute injury. They are not designed to guard against long-term effects from repeated low-level exposure to thermal energy.

“That’s one of many reasons why we’re interested in this study,” Wide said, explaining that current regulations are not based in real life data, as far as the way people are using cell phones. He said 85 percent of Americans and four billion people worldwide use cell phones regularly.

“Even if there’s a small effect, with so many using them, it could affect a lot of people,” he said. “It will definitely remain an issue for several more years to come.”

Davis, on the other hand, said the time to act is now. Changes must be made to shield the younger generation from chronic exposure.

“We do not have the answers, but when should we have asked against tobacco or asbestos?” she said. “If we have to wait on proof for cell phones like with these, we’ll end up with dead bodies, of our children and grandchildren.”