How wireless technology can affect the body
Most people don't think twice about talking, texting or emailing on the go — sending waves of radiation into the environment and their bodies as they stay connected through mobile technology.
The bulk of research into cellphones and their base towers has found no definitive evidence that short-term use poses significant health risks to humans. So, policy makers have given industry the green light, allowing the use of wireless gear to explode around the world, to about five billion wireless subscriptions worldwide, by the WHO's estimate.
In May 2011, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer did a review of existing research on the effects of exposure to such electromagnetic fields. It found that for most cancers, the available evidence was inadequate to make any conclusions about risk. In the case of glioma, a type of brain cancer, and acoustic neuroma, a slow-growing non-cancerous tumour in the inner ear that results in hearing loss, the existing evidence was limited. This means the group found that evidence of a causal relationship between cellphone radiation exposure and increased risk of developing one of those diseases was credible but could not rule out that chance, bias or confounding had played a role in establishing that relationship.
Nevertheless, the group found that in the case of glioma, the evidence was significant enough to warrant classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," a WHO category known as 2B, and to warrant further study of a possible link between wireless use and cancer risk, the group said.
Earlier reviews of research done by the European Commission and by Swedish scientists, whose results were published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, found some evidence of increased relative risk of glioma and acoustic neuromas after more than 10 years of cellphone use. But these studies also said the majority of papers on the topic reported no connection between 10 years of mobile phone use and disease.
Another study — published July 27 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute — looked at children from Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland, aged 7 to 19. It found that those with brain tumors were not statistically significantly more likely to have been regular cellphone users than the control subjects.
The researchers from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, concluded that brain tumor risk was related to the time elapsed since the cellphone subscription was started — but not to amount of use.
Supporting data on either side of the debate is limited. Health Canada, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and the European Union have based their cellphone regulations on the majority of evidence available so far.
Who's using wireless
Cellphone technology is already firmly ingrained in Canadian culture — especially in urban centres. More than 20 million of us, or more than 62 per cent of the population, subscribed to wireless phone services at the end of March 2008, according to The Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association (CWTA).
The CWTA estimates 70 per cent of people in major urban centres in Canada are using wireless telecommunications technology, with some areas approaching the 80 per cent mark.
Placing voice calls on mobile devices rather than e-mailing or texting raises potential health concerns, because a user's level of exposure to radio-frequency energy is higher during a call. Talking on a handset takes a lot more power than sending and receiving texts or other information, and the handset is usually held closer to your body when you're speaking than when you're using the device for other purposes.
The amount of radiation — in this case, electromagnetic waves emitted by handsets — that penetrates your body is based largely on how close the device is to your head during calls, the number of phone calls you make, and how long your calls last.
Is it all in our heads?
According to the WHO, Health Canada, the FDA and the EC report, the bulk of scientific research has found no significant links between cellphone use and adverse health effects.
Tthe EC research review did find some evidence that radio-frequency energy can cause local temperature changes in the brain, alter protein structure and expression and affect neurotransmitter biochemistry.
Both the EC and the Occupational and Environmental Medicine studies found evidence that cellphone radiation might possibly influence some human behaviour, such as attention and memory.
The EC report also reviewed previous research into a possible link between mobile phone use and brain tumours in children and concluded that further investigation into the issue is "warranted" given the widespread use of cellphones among children and adolescents and the lack of relevant studies looking at possible effects on this group.
The U.K., Germany, Belgium, Israel, Russia and India are advising that children limit their use of cellphones. France is working on legislation that would prevent the marketing of cellphones to children under the age of 12.
Health Canada's only note of caution for children is to avoid using a cellphone while riding a bicycle.
With researchers lacking the timeline, and therefore the data, to take a definitive stand on the long-term health effects of mobile telecommunications, some organizations, such as members of the BioInitiative Report, the European Environment Agency, and the EMR Policy Group, say current laws regulating the use of electromagnetic devices should be reconsidered.
Their position, which they say follows "the precautionary principle," is that if we can't be certain something won't have a negative impact on our health, we should err on the side of caution.
But according to Tony Muc, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto and the chief physicist at Toronto-based Radiation Health and Safety Consulting, we actually know a lot about the principles behind mobile phone technology.
"As far as cellphones and cellphone-like technology is concerned, the relevant electromagnetic radiation has been studied since microwave ovens came on to the scene," he said.
"To say that cellphones now are a relatively unstudied phenomenon is simply not true, as far as the underlying radiation is concerned."
Cellphone technology operates at 450 megahertz, 900 megahertz, and 1,800 megahertz - frequencies that are in the same region as microwave ovens, which generally operate at 2,450 megahertz. These devices, along with TVs, radios, and radar, emit electromagnetic waves that are non-ionizing - which means they lack enough energy to break chemical bonds in the body. So electromagnetic field radiation, unlike ultraviolet light, X-rays and Gamma rays, doesn't cause ionization or radioactivity in humans.
"We've had microwave ovens in our homes for more than 40 years now, and the prevalence has increased in North America — they're virtually everywhere now," Muc said.
"The operating frequency is in the same region, and there hasn't been any particular influence attributed to them, even though people have looked."
A matter of power
So if cellphones radiate waves similar in frequency to microwave ovens, and we hold handsets close to our heads, could we be cooking our craniums?
According to the United Kingdom health protection agency, the maximum temperature rise in the head due to absorption of energy from a mobile phone is around 0.1ºC — a far cry from what a microwave oven does to a frozen dinner.
Muc explained the difference lies in the amount of power each device uses. Most cellphones operate at power levels ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 watts, according to the World Health Organization.
The average household microwave generates 500 to 1,000 watts, according to the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.
Muc said that with a cellphone, "you have this little source powered by a battery that you're holding within a centimetre of your head, that's about 1,000 times weaker [than a microwave oven].
"So the net effect [of a cellphone] is still negligible — just like the net effect of the microwave oven is negligible, because even though it's stronger, you're further away."
It can be argued that while electromagnetic fields, the basis for cellular communication, have been studied extensively, mobile technology is unique because handsets are used in such close proximity to our bodies. Nevertheless, Muc says decades of research into electromagnetic fields have given us enough information to reject "the precautionary principle" as the best course of action when it comes to wireless communications.
"As far as the scientific evidence is concerned, there is no sound basis for a public policy to either restrict, or much less ban, the use of cellphone technology," he said.
"Human society, if they want to do that, has every right and privilege to do it — that's what freedom is — but to call it science is nonsense."