The hysterical cancer campaign against cell phones

I love Northern California and have lived here most of my life. But as enlightened as this part of the world likes to think it is, we have a strain of know-nothing technophobia that masquerades as progressive politics.

I’m thinking of two recent events: One is San Francisco’s grandstanding decision to make cell phone retailers post meaningless numbers as a shield against an unproven cancer threat; the other is the outbreak of whooping cough in Marin County, blamed in part on parents who refuse to inoculate their children.

Sure, it’s easy to hate the wireless companies for their high prices and terrible customer service. And if there were a documented health risk associated with cell phone use, those profit-hungry bozos would be as willing to fess up to the problem as the tobacco companies were to acknowledge the link between smoking and cancer. But no one has proven that cell phone use poses a health hazard, and quite a bit of science says it doesn’t.

It’s equally easy to hate big pharma; we all know how quick it is to sacrifice profit for the public good. But like it or not, science has proven over and over again that vaccines don’t cause autism, and when administered properly save lives — not only those of the kids who are vaccinated, but the lives of children and adults they otherwise might infect.

This is an IT blog, so I won’t go on about the vaccine issue. But I’ll bet that many of the same people who won’t let their kids get a potentially life-saving shot are also beating the drums about the supposed dangers of cell phones.

And here’s the bottom line: If the San Francisco ordinance stands, it will set a precedent that could result in a stream of lawsuits challenging everything from the building of cell phone towers to the use of wireless equipment in your own home and workplace.

Cell phones? Not in my backyard Giving consumers information is a good thing. But that information should be useful.

The ordinance passed in San Francisco requires retailers selling cell phones to post information on what is called the “specific absorption rate” (SAR) of its products. The SAR rates measure the amount of radio wave radiation absorbed into the user’s body tissue.

What’s wrong with that? Quite a bit. To begin with, very few consumers have any idea what SAR means. Even if they do, posting a number that has no real context falsely indicates that a phone with a lower rating is safer than one with a higher rating. What’s more, the FCC already limits the amount of radiation a cell phone may emit.

Those warning signs don’t provide useful information, and late last week, the CTIA, which represents the industry, filed suit to overturn the ordinance.

I’m no fan of the CTIA, and simply posting inane SAR signs would hardly be a disaster. But the ordinance sets a terrible precedent that will be used by NIMBYs everywhere to block installation of cell phone towers and other types of wireless equipment. If those people live next door to you or in an adjacent apartment, they could even claim that your cell phone use endangers their children. Sure, that’s a stretch, but given how litigious our country has become, I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen.

What about the evidence? Concerns over the health effects of cell phone use go back as far as the 1990s. The National Cancer Institute began a comprehensive study of possible environmental and genetic causes of malignant and benign brain tumors in 1994 and published the results in 2001. Here’s what they said:

The researchers found no evidence that a person’s risk of developing a brain tumor increased with increasing years of use or average minutes of use per day, nor did brain tumors among cellular phone users tend to occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which the person reported using their phone.

To be fair, cell phones in use at the time were analog, but a larger, contemporary European study that did look at digital phones had similar results. The Interphone study has been characterized by some in the media as ambiguous. I’m not at all sure that’s the case. Here’s the conclusion of the 10-year study as expressed by the researchers themselves.

In this first national report from the Interphone Study, there was no significantly increased risk of development of acoustic neuroma among regular users of handheld cellular telephones. In addition, the pattern of use of a cellular telephone did not correlate with the location of the tumor or symptoms of the disease. In line with previous studies, we found no correlation between the side on which the telephone was most frequently held and the site of the tumor. Finally, there was no increase in risk according to the telephone operating system first used (analogue or digital).

Doesn’t sound ambiguous to me. Yes, the study was funded, in part, by the wireless industry. Does that poison results? I haven’t seen a serious critique of the work that would lead me to think that the results were biased.

More studies are under way, including one that looks at the effects on children. If it turns out that there is a serious health danger associated with cell phone use, a sign in the store won’t be of much help.

The somewhat hysterical campaign against cell phone use worries me. It’s easy to poke fun at people who disregard science and claim the earth is only 5,000 years old. But is fearmongering about wireless technology and vaccinations any smarter?

I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net.

This article, “The hysterical cancer campaign against cell phones,” was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder’s Tech’s Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com.