Mobile menace? A massive number of us own a mobile phone. But are they potentially doing untold damage?
The mobile communication device, more humbly known as the mobile, has become one of the most potent symbols of modernism and communication in our age.
In developed countries, it’s rare indeed for an individual not to own a mobile. They play a vital role in work, organising our social lives, enabling us to roam and communicate across virtually the entire planet as never before.
It’s hardly even necessary to mention the astonishing benefits this brings. Accessing the internet through mobile devices might enable education resources to reach into communities isolated from libraries or similar information areas.
Equally mobile phones enable instant contact with emergency services, saving lives and enabling immediate responses.
Health risk
The fly in the ointment behind is this is the persistent fear that beneath the exterior there may be potential risks lurking. Activists and commentators have long argued over the real capability of mobile phones to increase the risk of diseases like cancer.
It’s not just the phones themselves. Others argue there’s a genuine risk at hand from mobile phone masts.
And with such a huge number of people using these devices, a definitive answer is needed. Whilst some argue the precautionary principle suggests we shouldn’t use things unless risk is completely mitigated, in the real world the crucial role of the mobile renders this logic useless.
So more scientific study is really the only chance we stand of ever categorically answering any of these questions. The trouble is that science seems divided over just what the true dangers are.
Stuart Eke is the Public Affairs Manager for the Mobile Operators Association (MOA). It represents the five major UK mobile phone network operators; 3, O2, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone.
“Mobile phones are now an integral part of modern life and bring significant benefits to communities around the world,” he says.
“The issue of safety of its products is one that is of great importance to the industry, to the public and to governments. This is why there has been a significant investment in independent scientific research into the safety of mobile telephony in the past two decades.
“This scientific evidence has been reviewed more than 30 times by agencies around the world, including the World Health Organisation and the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA).
“The outcome of these reviews is consistent and extremely reassuring. The most recent statement from the WHO was published in May 2010 and concluded “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use.””
Eke continues to explain that all mobile phones are built to comply with international health and safety standards, which are designed to minimise people’s exposure to radio frequency emissions, and are conservative and have large inbuilt safety margins.
“There is no established evidence that using mobile phones causes ill health. However, if people are concerned, they can minimise their exposure even further by keeping calls short, texting, or using hands free devices.
“It is important that any emerging scientific evidence is kept under review. Such a review is already planned in the UK, by the HPA’s Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation, which is due to be published towards the end of 2011.” he concludes.
Uncovering the truth
So there’s one opinion that suggests there’s little reason for disquiet.
‘Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances,’ explains the WHO’s EMF web portal. Mobile phones operate through similar science.
‘Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body,’ continues the WHO resource. ‘At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.’
‘A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating.’
The International Agency for Research on Cancer published its Interphone Study, on brain cancer and mobile phone risks, in May 2010.
‘In the late 1990s, several expert groups critically reviewed the evidence on health effects of low level exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, and recommended research into the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephone use,’ explains the study, describing reasons behind its research. 13 countries around the world were involved in the study, which began in 2000. It looked at results ‘for four types of tumours in tissues that most absorb RF energy emitted by mobile phones: tumours of the brain (glioma3 and meningioma4), of the acoustic nerve (schwannoma5), and of the parotid gland6.’This was their key finding:
‘A reduced [odds ratio] OR for glioma and meningioma related to ever having been a regular mobile phone user possibly reflects participation bias or other methodological limitations. No elevated OR for glioma or meningioma was observed ≥10 years after first phone use.
‘There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, in the highest decile of cumulative call time, in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. Biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation.’
It’s tough science for the layperson to handle, but Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, said: “An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone.
“However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.”
The study explains people use mobiles more commonly, and for longer nowadays, but this may be offset by lower emissions from mobiles and increased texting.
Professor Elisabeth Cardis revealed: The Interphone study will continue with additional analyses of mobile phone use and tumours of the acoustic nerve and parotid gland.
“Because of concerns about the rapid increase in mobile phone use in young people, who were not covered by Interphone, CREAL is coordinating a new project, MobiKids, funded by the European Union, to investigate the risk of brain tumours from mobile phone use in childhood and adolescence.”
Confusion reigns
So what are we to make of these conclusions? They seem to suggest there’s little danger, but at the same time scientists are launching yet further research, which could suggest the picture isn’t totally black and white.
At this stage, it’s tough to make a true judgement. More time is needed for longer term evaluation. The challenge is that by the moment certainty is upon us, it’s possible damage may have been done. Maybe this is just a price we’ll always pay for the newest science.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Read more articles with reference to Sustainability and Health, or Communication
Resources:
Interphone study reports on mobile phone use and brain cancer risk
Mobile telecommunications and health research programme report 2007
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks SCENIHR
