Are cellphones bad for your health?
Cellphones may be harmful, and kids could be the most vulnerable. Here's why, and how to limit your exposure
By Lesley Young
How cellphones work
Bear with us here as we go through some basics you may already know: Cellphones are essentially portable radios, receiving from and transmitting to cellphone towers using radio frequencies (RF) that, in terms of their range, fall between those from FM radios and those from microwave ovens.
RF from cellphones can penetrate your body. The depth and the amount you absorb depend on how close you hold the phone to your body and the strength of the signal. The RF energy increases the farther you are from a cell tower and depends on any obstacles that block it, which means it can vary within a single call.
Health Canada has set a maximum specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.6 watts of RF per kilogram of body weight as a level that people can safely absorb. “This value is 50 times lower than the level that would start to cause a health effect,” says Robert Bradley, director of the Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau at Health Canada. “This means that they’re safe for users regardless of age or cumulative use.”
Health concerns about cellphones
So there’s nothing to worry about, right? Not so fast. Some scientists are concerned about heavy cellphone use over many years, especially the future effects on today’s young users. And several studies indicate that long-term use is associated with an increased risk of slow-growing brain tumours and an ear nerve cancer. Most often cited is research by Lennart Hardell, a professor at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. His work is epidemiological: It’s based on analysis of the distribution of a disease, but does not establish direct cause and effect. The studies show a 20 percent increased risk of malignant glioma (brain tumours) in “heavy” cellphone users—roughly 2,000 hours over 10 years (about 30 minutes per day). The risk increases to 200 percent for tumours on the side of the head mainly used during calls.
“We need research on more long-term users to understand the full risks,” stated Hardell in a release by the BioInitiative Working Group (BIWG), 14 scientists from around the world who feel existing public safety limits are inadequate. Hardell found a five-fold increase in the risk of brain tumours developing in people who started using cellphones before age 20. (Some scientists contend that children may be especially vulnerable because of their smaller head size and thinner skull bones.)
Martin Blank, a BIWG co-founder and an associate professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University in New York, maintains sufficient evidence—BIWG’s report, updated in the March 2009 issue of Pathophysiology, looks at 15 studies—already shows that RF electromagnetic field levels now considered to be safe can damage human DNA. “RF is a potential biological agent,” says Blank. “The energy is weaker than microwaves, but essentially the same.” BIWG recommends that standards be set 1,000 times lower than current ones. For children, Blank suggests that a cellphone be used only as a tool.
Health Canada, the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. and the World Health Organization (WHO) point out that these studies do not show a consistent link to cancer, and cite other research that shows no increased risk. Within the past year, however, Finland has recommended that children favour texting, Israel warned its citizens to stay at least half a metre away from chargers (which emit greater RF) and France has proposed legislation that would ban advertising of cellphones to kids under age 12 and ban the sale of phones for use by kids under six. Canada and the United States have not taken such steps. (Indeed, a U.S.-based company called Firefly Mobile says on its website that it’s “the mobile phone for mobile kids.” It targets kids and tweens, featuring colourful phones with oodles of games and two large buttons—with the icon of a woman or a man—so a child can quickly reach mom or dad.)
Clearly, people need some definitive answers. Yet the evidence many governments have been waiting for—findings from the Interphone Study Group, WHO’s 13-country study on cellphone use cancer risks—is unlikely to provide those answers. A final paper, which was expected last fall, has been delayed with reports of disagreements among the researchers. Early findings have been faulted by some scientists for poor-quality data (usage rates are dependent on participants’ memories—a criticism of many epidemiological studies). And none of the Interphone studies included children.
The bottom line
To date, Bradley’s Health Canada laboratory has not been able to reproduce the results of studies that claim a causal link between RF and DNA damage. “The reassuring aspect is that if there is a cancer risk, it’s awfully hard to find,” he says, and adds that there isn’t enough knowledge to provide any specific advice: “Limit use to five minutes a day? Two hours a day? You have to have something concrete to say.”
Not everyone agrees with a wait-and-see approach. “While there’s a lot of uncertainty in the science, it’s important to provide information to the public so people can make their own decisions,” says Loren Vanderlinden, supervisor of environmental health assessment and policy at Toronto Public Health, which has advised limiting cellphone use. “We call it ‘prudent avoidance.’ ”
Ways to limit exposure
• Limit children’s use of cellphones to texting and emergencies.
• Spend less time talking—text or use a land line.
• Use a headset or earpiece. These emit almost zero RF. Carry your cellphone in a purse or backpack (of course, RF is only an issue when the phone is turned on).
• Choose a cellphone with a low SAR. To find the value for a specific model, go to mmfai.org/public/sar.cfm.
• Avoid products claiming to reduce RF exposure, such as phone shields. There is no evidence that they work, and they may interfere with the operation of the phone.
What do you think? Do you limit your kids' use of cellphones, or your own? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Related:
• Is HRT safe?
• The 5 deadliest cancers for women
• Top Canadian medical breakthroughs
This article was originally titled "The Truth About Cellphones," in the September 2009 issue of Best Health. Subscribe today to get the full Best Health experience—and never miss an issue!—and make sure to check out what's new in the latest issue of Best Health.
Best Health Magazine, September 2009













































The opening paragraphs of this "infomation" is incorrect. In the second paragraph, it states "RF energy increases the farther you are from a cell...."
Think about it. How does that work? Something like, "the farther you are from a fire, the warmer you become"?
If you take the time to read Health Canada's Safety Code 6, where much of the so-called "information" is based on European studies, there is no conclusive evidence of health risks. Safety Code 6 is filled with inuendos such as, "could have"; "possibly"; "may cause"; etc. There is not one conclusive shred of evidence of an actual heatlh risk in that whole "Code". This is not to suggest there may not be risks but until something more than misinformation and inuendo comes along, take off the aluminum-foil hats and get a life.
... and then we have body metal like dental materials that act as signal antennas and conduct electricity as in a thermostat. Nobody seems willing to give up wireless convenience or technologically go "backwards" despite the studies, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that wearing tinfoil in a microwave isn't a good idea.
Take heed that most of the articles showing no harm are produced by the telecommunication industry itself, or paid by it. The vast majority of independent studies (not industry funded) show effects. Certainly it's past time for Health Canada to begin to employ the Precautionary Principle, like many other countries. Why take the chance that 10 yrs. down the road today's children will develop cancer? The answer is money - the telecommunication companies make more money than every industry except oil and they spend it freely among people deciding what is safe for us. We must demand the same safeguards as the rest of the world before it's too late.
If there is even the slightest chance that cell phones can harm our kids ... and that includes teens, then why would be buy them one? We baby boomers survived growing up without cells and I have a feeling there are going to be alot more "social rejects" amoung our kids generation because of all of this new computer and phone technology. So people, stop buying your kids cell phones! And why so many of you think your kids are "safer" just because they are carrying a cell phone is beyond me! Do you really think they are going to have a chance to call you, and you'll get there on time to protect them, if they actually find themselves in a dangerous situation! Really, people just do not use their common sense any more!
Well, now in Ontario we can add another health risk
due to RF energy, since McGuinty's smartmeters (hydro
meters) are in effect transmitters. Some or all of these meters may transmit at a power level of 2 watts,
significantly stronger than cell phones. The meters
transmit in short bursts, so the effect is like a spike
into a person's body. The frequencies of these meters are near the microwave range in the RF spectrum. These meters are likely to result in a large increase in cancers in the coming years. The Provincial Government
should be made to reverse it's decision to mandate these dangerous installations.
I'm an average-sized adult weighing in at 75 kilos. I'd be seriously concerned if I was absorbing 120 watts of radiant energy and I find it hard to believe that there would be no effect on my health. Slow cookers transfer a similar amount of heat (i.e. energy) into foods to cook them.
I'm not too concerned about my cellphone which emits a maximum of 1/4 watt, only some of which is absorbed, and I rarely spend more than a minuit per week on my phone. I can, however, believe the long-term effects of high useage.
I see we have tunnel vision again ...
Is this also not a cumulative effect ..so if we get x amount of radiation from our cell phones and then x radiation from our wireless home Lan, and then x radiation from cf light bulbs ,and we liv right next door to a microwave tower were Ok right..