Australian study raises health questions over cellular phones
The world`s cellular industry is upset by the inferences being drawn from the research but is also accused of misleading the public about the study`s implications
StePHen n. brown, mev inc.
Recent medical research has sparked debate over a disturbing question: Is there a causal link between long-term use of cellular telephones and cancer? The study, published in the May 1997 issue of Radiation Research and conducted from 1993 to 1995 in Adelaide, Australia, dealt with the inductance-transfer of energy from the handset, typically held against a person`s head during a cellular telephone conversation. The research supposedly found that cellular-phone handsets cause tumors in mice.
The Adelaide study is being treated in a predictable way. The cellular telephone industry throughout the world considers it to be biased. Media coverage has varied from country to country, with Australian media paying a lot of attention and American press paying little thus far. Although there is genuine disagreement about the implications of the research for human health, generally speaking, the industry is downplaying or ridiculing the study. This is a typical first reaction to information contradicting a firmly held belief.
If the findings of the Adelaide study are corroborated, it would be terrible news for public health, for the cellular industry, and for all governments that actively promote the commercial spread of cellular phones. For years, the American government, through the Federal Communications Commission`s (fcc) policies, has actively promoted the growth of wireless communications markets, including cellular and personal communications services (pcs). In 1992, former fcc commissioner Andrew Barret wrote, "The fcc must continue to engage in efforts to develop pcs [wireless] services in the United States."
The tradition lives on at the agency. Michele Farquar, wireless bureau chief of the fcc, began her recent speech to the National League of Cities by saying, "Wireless is becoming the catalyst of change for telecommunications....That is why the commission [fcc] has found all the wireless services to be in the public interest." Nearly all the cities in the country are members of the league. They are negotiating with telecommunications companies over the terms and conditions that govern the location and construction of approximately 125,000 towers that must be built to offer wireless services. If the cities make the negotiations long and tendentious, the construction rates could slow to a trickle and disrupt the fcc`s policy of expanding the nations` wireless telecommunications networks. Thus, Farquar concluded her speech with an offer of help: "We [the fcc] stand ready to offer our assistance to local governments in overcoming hurdles to rapid wireless deployment."
Behind that offer is a big stick. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a clause saying: "No...local government...may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio-frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the commission`s regulations concerning such emissions." In her speech, Farquar explains how those regulations are set: "The commission is committed to ensuring that wireless facilities operate in a way that ensures the public health and safety. This is a role that Congress has charged us with....Our radio-frequency emissions guidelines are the product of consensus between all federal agencies that are experts in issues of human health, and professional organizations that have devoted extensive study to this area."
Environmental versus health effects
Implicit in Farquar`s statement is the assumption that the fcc has oversight of health issues related to wireless communications equipment. If Congress charged the fcc with a role in public health issues, such a duty does not come from the Telecom Act. Section 704 refers to environmental rather than health effects. Also, Farquar did not identify the "professional organizations that have devoted extensive study" to the effect of radio emission on human health. However, it is likely they are Wireless Technology Research (wtr), a company that performs research on the health effects of cellular telephone use, and the Scientific Advisory Group of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association. wtr was created by funding from the wireless industry after a lawsuit claimed cellular phones caused brain cancer. No one should be surprised that the cellular industry has a role in determining radio-emission standards for public health: Private industry always involves itself in regulations affecting its product.
It is surprising, however, that Farquar`s statement indicates that the fcc emissions-setting group is a narrow one, relying on "federal agencies that are experts in issues of human health" to protect the public interest. In the context of radio emissions from cellular handsets, no one knows how well these federal agencies protect and represent the public interest in the face of the cellular industry`s economic interests. What is the trade-off between public health and the growth of cellular markets? American cities are making a great leap of faith by passively accepting the dictates of the fcc`s emissions-setting group. The cities owe it to themselves to have their own experts participate. If the industry or the fcc balk at the cities` participation, they can pursue a legal argument, to wit: The Telecom Act prohibits cities from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio-frequency emissions, not the health effects. Therefore, cities and states are free to regulate on the basis of health effects. The word "health" appears only three times in the Telecom Act, and not one mention is related to radio emissions. It would be difficult for anyone to argue successfully to a court that Congress intended the term "environmental" to include "health." This is the legal flaw that can undo the fcc`s regulation of "the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities" in cities. Will any city rise to the challenge? That depends on what the federal agencies do.
The Federal Drug Administration (fda) is informed about ongoing research regarding cellular phones and public health. Last year, it recommended that wtr use animals such as mice to investigate possible links between brain cancer and wireless equipment. However, it is not clear whether the agency is being aggressive with the wtr or merely responding to pressure from Congress. In a memo dated April 7, 1997, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) asked fda administrator David Kessler about eight specific points regarding research on the health effects of cellular phones. The fda`s Diane Thompson replied in a letter dated May 5, which had an appendix of research abstracts. The Adelaide study was at the top of the list. Whether Markey`s efforts lead to more aggressive activity by the federal agencies involved with the fcc emissions-setting process is questionable. Public opinion will determine the outcome, but translating medical research into understandable terms for the public is where the credibility battle occurs. Several tit-for-tat exchanges about the Adelaide study read like a meeting of a debating society.
For example, Hugh Bradlow, director of Telstra Research Laboratories (Telstra is a major telecommunications carrier in Australia), says the study used mice that "were genetically predisposed to naturally develop these cancers." This is true, but misleading, according to Stewart Fist, an Australian reporter credited with widely publicizing the study. Comments like Bradlow`s ignore a normal scientific practice of separating the mice into two groups--those exposed to cellular emissions and those that were not. All the mice were predisposed to cancer, but those that were subject to controlled levels of exposure had cancer rates double those of the nonexposed group.
A second criticism: It is completely inaccurate to infer from mice what might happen to humans. The counterpoint: It is standard practice to use mice in medical experiments to infer medical results in humans. If the Adelaide study is flawed because it used mice, so are most experiments worldwide.
Research must be independent
This debate will only be resolved though more research conducted independently of the cellular industry and of groups with a grudge against the industry. The telecommunications revolution and wireless technology, in particular, are more examples of government and business moving forward with technology without knowing the effects on public health. But even this is not the central issue. Just as people continue to smoke cigarettes despite the warnings on the packages, people are likely to use cellular phones even if a causal link with cancer were established. The real issue is financial liability. If the Adelaide study is supported by further research and a credible pattern develops, the cellular industry could face and lose lawsuits for years to come.
The importance of independent research cannot be overstated. Research is the one tool every modern society needs because once an economy is permeated by a particular technology, it stays with the society for generations. Without good research, technology becomes a gamble with the public health--a situation well-represented by the statements of a physician who publicly commented on Fist`s stories: "Even things used for medical diagnosis...though thought by everyone to be safe, have not had enough years of existence to be completely sure that they don`t have bad long-term effects. Cellular phones are in the same category, and we are now performing the experiments on a huge population....We performed these...gifxperiments before with...broadcasting, [electric] transmission lines, and increased radiation exposure [from] transporting...people at 40,000 feet....These things turned out to be innocuous....We performed other experiments that went the other way....Tell a shipfitter exposed to bushels of asbestos about the wonders of that substance." q
Stephen N. Brown is president of Nashville, TN-based mev Inc., which specializes in market research and public policy toward new technology in the telecommunications industry. He can be contacted at tel: (615) 399-1239; e-mail: mevinc@aol. com.