|
|
| Home Page | Brewer Report | FAQ's | Newsletter | Success Stories | Horror Stories | Neal's Legal Battles | |
Few people realize how pervasive their exposure to radiation really is. Some of it is from natural sources like the Sun, but increasingly, it is man-made. Everything from microwave ovens to your computer screen emits some amount of microwave energy - for the most part in tiny doses. Sometimes we are aware that we are being subjected to doses of man-made radiation as is the case when you have an x-Ray or other medical procedure. Other times, however, we are unaware that our bodies are being exposed to potentially harmful rays, or just how great the exposure is. One of the most widespread examples of this circumstance is the cell phone.
Initially a status symbol of the privileged, cell phones have now become so commonplace that today, there are more cell phone subscribers than subscribers to conventional land lines. But while the cell phone industry has grown at a phenomenal rate, understanding of the safety and health issues associated with non-ionizing radiation has lagged behind.
Recently, I sat down with internationally recognized energy expert Milton Copulos to discuss the potential hazards the public may face from the radiation that is so pervasive. In this third installment of that interview, Copulos discusses some of the reasons for concern.
Kathleen Deoul: The cell phone industry keeps saying that there is no link between cancer and cell phones. Yet, it seems that the data suggests otherwise. How can an individual know what is true?
Copulos: Well, first, Kathleen, as you know, until recently the studies have been roughly split down the middle in terms of their conclusions regarding the safety of cell phones and their potential relationship to cancer. But on closer analysis something curious emerges: most of the studies that conclude that cell phone radiation is harmless were funded by the industry and most of the studies that conclude there is a potential danger are independently funded.
Kathleen Deoul: I was aware of that and of course the fact that when one of the studies they funded came to the conclusion that there was a potential threat, they tried to suppress its conclusions.
Copulos: Exactly. In fact, they tried three times. But what I find interesting is that the industry is using some of the same tactics the tobacco industry used when trying to claim there was no link between smoking and cancer.
Kathleen Deoul: What sort of tactics do you mean?
Copulos: Well one of the most common is what I call "rat denial."
Kathleen Deoul: "Rat denial?" What on Earth is that?
Copulos: When the early animal studies began to show a link between cancer and some of the constituent elements of tobacco smoke, the first thing the industry said was "People are not rats." They then went on to assert that effects on animals are often different than those in humans because their DNA is different.
Kathleen Deoul: On the surface that would seem to make sense.
Copulos: Yes it would, Kathleen, and that is why it was so effective. But while it is true that there are differences between animal DNA and human DNA, they are still from 97% to 99% similar. And while it is true that sometimes effects seen in animals don't show up in humans, the simple fact is that the reason we begin by testing animals is that in most cases the effects we see in them DO show up in humans, So the "rat denial" is really another kind of animal, a red herring.
Kathleen Deoul: What do the tests their so concerned about show?
Copulos: One of the most important ones is that exposure to even small amounts of non-ionizing radiation over extended periods can lead to breakage in DNA chains.
Kathleen Deoul: And just what does that do?
Copulos: There are a whole range of potential health effects including memory loss, effects on unborn children including low birth rates and higher proportions of birth defects and even leukemia. Of course a link has been established to a type of non-cancerous tumor as well.
Kathleen Deoul: But how can they get away with denying there is any danger if the evidence is as strong as you imply?
Copulos: Well one way they are able to avoid blame is through another long-honored tactic I call the "fallacy of certainty."
Kathleen Deoul: And just what is the "fallacy of certainty."
Copulos: In plain language it's the insistence on absolute proof. We must be certain, they would argue, before we jeopardize an industry that has grown to significant importance in our economy. This line of reasoning makes sense when you hear it, but again, on close examination it is evident that the argument is just another ploy to avoid responsibility.
Kathleen Deoul: How so? It does sound reasonable.
Copulos: The reason is simple: it asks for the impossible. What most people don't realize is that in most instances, we cannot say with surety what causes cancer. Yes, there are some exceptions such as cervical cancer and smoking-related cancer, but even there, an element of uncertainty remains. There are people who are infected with the Human Papilloma Virus, or HPV who still do not develop cervical cancer, and there are people who are not infected with HPV that do. Similarly, there are individuals who smoke all their lives and do not develop cancer, and others who never smoked who do. So, we really don't know as much as the medical establishment would have us believe. Therefore, when industry representatives ask for absolute proof that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer, they know that their request is unlikely to ever be fulfilled.
Kathleen Deoul: But doesn't that work both ways? Isn't it true that if you can't absolutely prove that something causes cancer, you also cannot prove absolutely that it does not?
Copulos: That's absolutely correct, Kathleen, and that's why epidemiologists use probabilities and similar statistical tools in their work. They realize that you can't be 100% certain, but if you can be 90% certain, or even 51% certain, that's probably enough to justify action. It stems from something called "the precautionary principle."
Kathleen Deoul: What do you mean by "the precautionary principle?"
Copulos: It's pretty straightforward. In plain English, it's the notion that we should not take unnecessary chances. It holds that if it is more likely than not that some action will result in harm, it makes sense to avoid taking that action as a precaution. It's sort of like the old joke in which a man goes to a doctor and says "My arm hurts when I do that." And the doctor replies "Then don't do that."
Kathleen Deoul: Well, that makes sense to me. But let me ask you this. Even though there are studies that say cell phones and other sources of non-ionizing radiation are harmless, there are also studies that come to the opposite conclusion. As you noted, the split is about 50/50, with most of the positive studies funded by industry. So how would the precautionary principle apply?
Copulos: Well, Kathleen, let's look at some very recent studies and see how they would fit into this line of reasoning.
First is a study from Europe which was published in June of 2005 in the journal Mutation Research. It looked at the effect of mobile phone radiation on DNA, using both human and rat cells. The researchers found that the radiation did cause DNA breakage and that the breakage could be passed on to subsequent generations of cells. This is a very important finding for two reasons. It included human cells, and demonstrated that the damage could be passed on.
A second study, from Sweden looked at the effect of cell phone radiation on brain tissue in rats. It found that exposure to cell phone radiation did cause damage to brain cells of adolescent rats, and more important to the areas that governed memory, sensation and movement. Their results were published in the June 2003 issue of the journal Environmental Perspectives.
The third study, again from Sweden, you probably are familiar with. It looked at cell phone radiation and the increased risk of Acoustic Neuroma, a type of benign tumor. This study found that people who had used cell phones for at least ten years had a markedly increased risk of developing this type of tumor.
Kathleen Deoul: I am familiar with that study, and what I found particularly important about it was that this type of tumor grows on the nerve connecting the brain and ear. It is easy to imagine that if cell phone radiation can cause a benign tumor in this area, it could also cause cancerous tumors.
Copulos: Well, that's exactly right. Mind you, none of these effects are a direct indication that cell phone radiation causes cancer, but they certainly should raise a red flag. But there are two other studies that illustrate the dilemma that exists in that regard.
In one study, published in 1997 in Australia, researchers found that Lymphoma-prone mice exposed to cell phone radiation were twice as likely to develop that type of cancer as mice that were not exposed.
But another Australian study, published in 2002, found that Lymphoma-prone mice exposed to cell phone radiation were not more likely to develop Lymphomas than ones that were not. So these two studies directly contradict each other.
If scientists can't agree, how can a non-technical person be expected to make a decision?
Kathleen Deoul: That's exactly my point. Although I must say that if there is any chance that something is going to give me cancer, I want to avoid it.
Copulos: You have it spot on, and you've just applied the precautionary principle.
Kathleen Deoul: Well, to me it's just common sense.
Copulos: Well actually, Kathleen, that's what the precautionary principle really is. It just says don't take risks you don't have to, or if you must, take precautions to minimize the risk. But there's something else that should enter into your decision process.
Kathleen Deoul: What is that?
Copulos: The assumptions used in the study. For example, there have been many studies that looked at the connection between electromagnetic fields caused by high-voltage power lines and various health effects. Except for one form of childhood leukemia, most concluded that the evidence was too weak to support a conclusion. That is important because while they didn't say such fields didn't cause cancer or other health effects, they also failed to conclude that there were no health effects. But all of these studies looked at, or assumed a relatively low level of exposure.
In a separate group of studies that looked at occupational exposure, in other words exposures of people who were in close proximity to strong electromagnetic fields on a regular basis, the findings were quite different. In four out of five studies an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease was found as well as an increased risk for Lymphocytic Leukemia.
But these were not the only affects identified. Electromagnetic fields have also been found to cause changes in heart rhythms and rates, decreased sleep and sleep efficiency and possibly a link to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS), commonly called Lou Gehrig's disease.
Kathleen Deoul: That's a pretty scary list, but you said that these studies were of occupational exposures. That means they involved people who were around these electromagnetic fields every day and therefore had much higher levels of exposure than someone who was not in one of those professions. How do these studies relate to other people?
Copulos: I'm glad you asked that Kathleen. These studies were done over the course of three decades, and obviously changed over that period. But one thing remains constant among them: health effects are related to the level of exposure, both in terms of strength and duration. I think it just makes sense that longer exposures to higher doses of radiation would be more likely to have an effect than shorter exposures to lower levels.
Kathleen Deoul: I think I can see where you're going. We get longer and more intense exposures to non-ionizing radiation from cell phones than were common in the past.
Copulos: Right, again, Kathleen. Even more important, the group that is probably getting the greatest exposure is the most vulnerable: children.
Kathleen Deoul: I guess that's one of the things that worries me most. All you have to do is go to the shopping mall, or anywhere else that young people congregate and you can see them all on their phones all the time. Also, most of them now seem to have hands-free phones that makes the problem even worse, because most of them don't know that you actually get more exposure to harmful radiation from the hands-free units than from a hand-held unit.
Copulos: Exactly, and I would also point out that the exposure is there whenever the cell phone is transmitting, whether you are talking or not. So when they are text messaging, playing video games, or listening to music, they are getting just as much exposure as if they were having a conversation.
Kathleen Deoul: What also worries me is the growing presence of technologies such as WiFi and Bluetooth which permit cell phones and computers to talk to each other without the need for a wired connection. While most users give it little thought, what these technologies do is use radio waves to create their connections. WiFi creates what is called a "Local Area Network," or "LAN" like you might have in your office, while Bluetooth is used to create a "Personal Area Network," or "PAN" such as you might have at home linking two or more computers. Of course, the most common use for Bluetooth is for wireless hands-free cell phones and for WiFi providing internet access to individuals away from home. But the important point is that both dramatically increase the exposure of people to non-ionizing radiation - in the case of WiFi even people who don't have cell phones or personal computers and don't even realize that they are being bombarded by microwave radiation.
Copulos: I agree Kathleen, and the potential for exposure is far greater than most people understand. For example, when you go into a Starbucks to buy a cup of coffee, you will see any number of people working on their personal computers. They are being connected to the Internet through a WiFi system that the store provides. Even though you're just there to buy a cup of coffee, you still will be exposed to the electromagnetic field that system generates.
But soon you'll have more to worry about than being exposed to electromagnetic radiation while buying your Latte Mocha Grande.
In July of 2004, the town of Grand Haven Michigan became the first community to install a citywide WiFi network. Now large cities ranging from Philadelphia to Los Angeles to New York are considering citywide networks of their own.
Kathleen Deoul: Yes, I heard about that. Aren't some of these cities considering using telephone poles and street lights as locations for the WiFi transmitters?
Copulos: Yes they are, Kathleen. In fact New York has offered some 18,000 light poles to six bidders who want to install WiFi.
Kathleen Deoul: So it may soon be impossible to escape these microwaves.
Copulos: That's right. But it won't happen without a fight.
Kathleen Deoul: Why do you say that?
Copulos: Commercial providers of Internet services are going to fight the publicly sponsored WiFi systems, because they might put them out of business. Most cities are planning on offering the connections for free or a nominal charge. This will make it tough if not impossible for private firms to compete.
Kathleen Deoul: In addition to all the obvious problems from having citywide WiFi networks, won't regulating them to ensure safety be more difficult as well. After all, it would be the same city officials who are installing the systems who would have the responsibility for regulating them.
Copulos: That's very true, Kathleen. But no matter who is operating the system, the basic problem of wide exposure to even more non-ionizing radiation will be there.
Kathleen Deoul: If the threat is going to be there, what steps should we take to protect ourselves against the dangers of non-ionizing radiation.
Next month in the conclusion of Kathleen's interview with noted energy expert Milt Copulos, find out what you can do to minimize the threat non-ionizing radiation could pose to your family.
Read: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
| Home Page | Brewer Report | FAQ's | Newsletter | Success Stories | Horror Stories | Neal's Legal Battles | |
 |
An STI Site |