Little thought had been given to the possible adverse health affects of cellular phones by 1993, though over 15 million units were in use in the United States alone at the time (Carlo 2001, p xii).  It took a nationally broadcasted interview and a widely publicized law suit to change the tide in the industry.  Cell phone safety became an issue in 1993 when Tampa Bay resident David Reynard filed a lawsuit against a cell phone carrier and maker for indirectly causing the death of his wife (Consumer Reports 2004).  CNN’s Larry King Live even devoted an entire show to the lawsuit and Reynard’s conviction that the fatal brain tumor his wife suffered resulted from overuse of her wireless phone (Carlo 2001, p. xiii).  However, the suit was dismissed by a Federal court in 1995 for “lack of valid scientific evidence,” and similar suits since have yielded no better results (Foster 2000).  While the outcomes of these lawsuits may have been unfavorable for the plaintiffs, the issues raised in court have opened the doors to much research and many relevant questions regarding the health safety of wireless technology.  If David Reynard ever considered his lawsuit unsuccessful from a financial standpoint, he can be assured that his monetary loss has sparked priceless debate and awareness centered on the real possibilities of cancer, genetic damage, lymphoma, and other harmful human diseases erupting from cellular phones. 

“Lack of Valid Scientific Evidence”...

Despite the claims of wireless manufacturers that their products have been proven to be safe, research simply has not been conclusive of whether their claims are true or not.  Cellular phones are the oldest and most widely-used form of public wireless communication today, and they have only been popular for the last 10-15 years.  In effect, the debate over health issues in the wireless market deals mostly with cell phones, since wireless internet is just a recent breakthrough and military devices utilizing wireless technology do not carry much weight in the public distress over health due to its relatively small magnitude and great proximity.

Currently, investigations regarding suspected carcinogens rely on two types of studies: epidemiology studies and standardized tests (Foster 2000).  Epidemiology studies utilize the statistical analysis of human health records, while standardized testing relies on experiments made on animals and laboratory cells.  Neither approach has produced definite results. 

In epidemiology studies, the modern research attempting to identify links between cancer and cell phone radiation is far from comprehensive.  The absence of a widely accepted single cause of cancer is just one of reason why linking the two is difficult.  Furthermore, statistical studies become complicated without the isolation of a control variables; even operating on the unfounded assumption that mobile phones have absolutely no connection to cancer, thousands of users would develop brain cancer every year anyway, given the statistics on number of users and percentage of US population that develops brain cancer each year (Foster 2000).   Consequently, it becomes nearly impossible to make a definitive statement about the correlation between mobile phones and cancer and even more so with other diseases. 

On the other hand, the individual standardized test yields more noticeable conclusions; the problem here is that the collection of individual conclusions is often self-contradictory.  In 1995, Henry Lai and some of his colleagues carried out a study at the University of Washington in Seattle by exposing rats’ bodies to a low level of radio frequency radiation (similar in strength to that emitted by a cell phone).  The result was a break in the rats’ brain cell DNA – an indicator of potential cancer-inducing effects (Foster 2000). 

However, efforts to confirm Lai’s results have been futile, if not counterproductive.  In an attempt to replicate Lai’s experiment, Motorola funded a group led by Joseph Roti at Washington University in St. Louis, and its conclusions were not only different but also “identified an experimental artifact that might have accounted for Lai’s positive results” (Foster 2000).  Luc Vershaeve led a Belgian government-funded group to conduct a similar experiment, only to find that the radiation exposure to the rats didn’t cause DNA breakage in other types of cells.  Finally, to cast Lai’s results into complete dubiety, Dr. Ross Adey, a well-respected scientist, conducted an experiment in which he applied radiation to laboratory rats at a higher level than Lai did and found a rather surprising outcome.  According to Dr. George Carlo, the former chief of the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group, “the biological effect [Adey] saw appeared to be protective, rather than damaging.  Rats exposed to microwaves from digital phones actually had fewer tumors than rats that were not exposed” (Carlo 2001, p. 114).  While the meticulous scientist will argue that Adey’s experiment involved a heavier dose of radiation, it is far more likely that the increased concentration of these microwaves would cause even more genetic damage than a lower concentration would. 

The contradictory conclusions seen in similar but distinct experiments indicate just how indeterminate standardized testing has been.  Moreover, beyond the fact that animal studies have not proven the link between cell phone radiation and cancer, experts have not agreed on just how relevant these results are to human health either.  Further criticism of the depth of standardized testing stems from the fact that the experiments performed to date have only exposed the animals to full-body radiation.  There have been no known tests which have applied the waves to a small spot on the rat’s head as mobile phones would to a human user.  Then any results from the mentioned animal studies would not logically correlate to cell phone usage.

With the lack of conclusive experimentation and research available today, the question remains: when will we have definite results?  More specifically, how long will it take to fully understand the health hazards of wireless technology?  Unfortunately, the answer is no more apparent than the outcomes of the studies.  In a 1997 letter from an official of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to a member of the House of Representatives, the official claimed that it is difficult to make a prediction and that the reliance on epidemiological studies will continue to slow this process because of the “relatively long latency period between exposure to a carcinogen and the diagnosis of the tumor” (Thompson 1997).  Without clear knowledge, it is necessary to make an ethical choice in considering whether and how much wireless technology should be used.  To better assess the risks at hand, it is important have at least a vague understanding of the technical aspects of the emitted electromagnetic radiation.

Technical Considerations...

Wireless communications systems transmit and receive waves in the radio frequency (RF) part of the electromagnetic spectrum (WIRC 2004), and mainstream cell phones function anywhere from 800 MHz to 1.9 GHz (Foster 2000).  It’s safe to say that most other wireless communications systems operate in nearby frequency bands.  Figure 1 shows an electromagnetic spectrum and indicates where different appliances and machines stand in comparison to wireless phones.  In terms of energy transmittance, wireless appliances fall somewhere in between microwave ovens and television sets and into a region of the spectrum known as the non-ionizing frequency range. 

Figure 1: Electromagnetic spectrum with common appliances

 Ionization is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules, producing molecular changes that can effectuate biological tissue and DNA damage (FCC 2004).  Non-ionizing energy is not strong enough to pull electrons from atoms and molecules; however, it is still capable of impairing genetic material and doing further damage.  Dr. Herman Schwan of the University of Pennsylvania conducted tests on animals in the 1950s to demonstrate that non-ionizing energy, like microwaves and radio waves, does its damage by heating rather than ionizing biological tissue (Panati 1981, p. 89).  The effects of heating are not to be underestimated though – cellular physiology is altered and there is a breakdown in the processes that serve to provide nutrients to cells and control cellular functions when tissue is heated.  In other words, heating can cause mutations, harm to the immune system, and, like ionization, damage to biological tissue.  Furthermore, evidence has suggested that low levels of non-ionizing radiation too weak to heat cells can yield non-thermal effects such as triggering the body’s stress-response mechanism, in turn increasing the chance of heart attacks, strokes, and cancer by way of chronic stress (Panati 1981, p.90).  

All this theory begs the question: how does this non-ionizing energy tie into wireless systems?  Cell phones, in particular, operate mostly on low levels of energy, though the amount can fluctuate into different ranges depending on signal strength, phone functions, and other variables (Consumer Reports 2004).  Additionally, while the phones operate at low levels and meet regulatory limits, the in-use proximity of the antenna to the head significantly alters the relative amount of radiation experienced by a user (Foster 2000).  What complicates matters even more is the fact that the human’s exposure depends greatly on the position of the handset with respect to the head, the shape of the individual’s head, and the electrical characteristics of the head; clearly, it is difficult to make a general statement of the user’s microwave intake.  Therefore, the relatively latent thermal effects couple with the unproven but apparent non-thermal effect to create a sense of uncertainty and unrest for wireless companies and their users.

Issues of Ethical Ambivalence... 

Considering the potential for harm with non-ionizing energy, it is no wonder that even informed wireless customers hold reservations about the budding technology.  The attempts of manufacturers to try to further reduce exposure have revealed that there is no perfect practical solution to the problem. 

Some have proposed building more closely spaced base stations in order to reduce health risk.  It is well known and easily verifiable that weak signals from base stations cause wireless phones’ broadcast power to rise (Foster 2000).  Because the increased proximity of base stations would improve signal strength, the logical solution would be to build more stations, thus decreasing phone power, in turn lessening radiation exposure.  However, this idea does not come without costs to both the marketer and the market.  While the firm must analyze whether the added benefit of the increased public relief over health outweighs the marginal cost of building more of these cellular sites and publicizing their actions, residents cannot help but wonder how much more they are at risk with base stations in their backyards. 

The layperson’s fears of radiation from base stations are not completely unfounded, either.  In the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency measured radiation levels at hundreds of locations in major cities like Atlanta, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. (Panati 1981, p. 102).  The study proved an obvious speculation – more microwave radiation is emitted in centers of wireless transmission and reception.  While wireless base stations can be considered a microcosm of the electrical pollution of major cities, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is quick to point out that cellular sites produce signals that are typically thousands of times less than safety limits (FCC 2004).  However, analogous to the idea that mobile phones are more hazardous than safety limits indicate because they are used near the brain, the cause of residents living near base stations is more justified because of the continuous radiation they receive, regardless of how low and “safe” the level. 

Another example of ethical reservation for the cell phone maker is the proposition to move antennas and other circuit elements farther from the user’s head (Foster 2000). In figure 2, a computer graphic of the cross section of a human head shows that radiation strength and distance from the wireless appliance are inversely proportional; the farther away a point is from the phone, the less energy absorbed at that point.  Since the controversy over wireless transmission lies in radiation, it is plausible that drawing transmitters (circuit elements) away from the head would inflict less radiation on the user.  The manufacturer can attempt to accomplish this idea by creating thicker phones so that the antenna can be placed farther back in the shell.  This design, unfortunately, is almost impossible to implement, not because of technical impracticalities but rather because of demand-side economics.  Consumers follow trend and thick mobile phones are out of style.  American pop culture’s fetish with everything skinny and sleek goes well beyond the runway model into the world of electronics and cell phones in particular. 

Figure 2: Cross section of a human head

The cell phone maker has a choice to make: how much trend and latest graphic design does it sacrifice for the consumer’s confidence in the safety of the product?  While this question concerns financial success, it also develops an ethical crossroad.  Should the company seek to bolster its own prosperity by keeping with thinner, more hazardous cell phones or should it implement the less-stylish design for the decreased health risks and public good?  Manufacturers that boldly sacrifice trend for safety would most likely be at a disadvantage in the near-perfectly competitive market of phone companies.  Furthermore, the informed public itself has a similar ethical choice to make in deciding if sporting less fashionable cell phones is worth promoting protection against the possible adverse effects of wireless exposure.  Regrettably, no guarantees of declining health risk can be made with these proposed solutions, leaving paramount questions like “How much will it decrease my chances of cancer?” unanswered. 

Perhaps more ethical controversy arises in the questionable assurances of wireless companies defending against accusations of unsafe products.  Nearly every mobile phone manufacturer has articles or statements on its website explaining to the lay consumer why its product is completely safe.  Keeping in mind the lack of valid scientific evidence to date on the effects of wireless transmissions, it is easy to see that Nokia cannot factually state what it does on its website:

A great deal of research has been completed, and the findings regularly reviewed by government agencies, international health organizations and other scientific bodies. These reviews consistently conclude that, radio signals operated at levels below the limits prescribed by standards and recommendations around the world, present no adverse effects. (Nokia 2004)

Companies like Motorola, Inc., a leader in wireless health funding, are a little less blunt and a little more sly, wording their answer as follows: “[Scientists’] conclusions have been consistent over many years: the radio signals from wireless telephones, two-way radios or other portable communications devices pose no known health risk” (Motorola 2004).  The average reader is most likely appeased but does not know the whole story. Motorola’s answer is not a bold-faced lie since there really is no known health risk, but it does not indicate that wireless phones are not known to be completely safe either.  Moreover, the wireless firm’s greatest advocate is probably the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).  Many groups make seemingly strong cases for health safety by guaranteeing that their products are well below the SAR.  While the FCC has imposed this regulatory measure on peak exposure, this limit cannot be accepted as the cutoff line between healthy and hazardous.  This is apparent when considering that different nations have very different limits on peak exposure due to the lack of concrete, universal evidence.

Summary of the Health Hazards

The simple conclusion to the questionable safety of wireless communications is that the answers are inconclusive. Epidemiological research, laborious yet necessary, lacks the sensitivity to precisely assess risk, and the relevance of standardized testing to human health is indefinite (Foster 2000).  Taking that into account, the choice to allow wireless communications to remain in the states or to impose stricter control over its transmissions is a utilitarian one.  Take cell phones for example; their benefits are numerous.  Their usefulness in emergencies, reduction of the need for telephone wiring and payphones, prevention of parents eavesdropping on conversations at home, and overall convenience all add up to better communication.  On the flip side, the use of mobile phones possibly increases the user’s chances of acquiring brain damage, cancer, sperm loss, nausea, headaches, genetic damage, DNA breakage, lymphoma, acoustic neuroma, and other conditions accusers have insisted result from usage.  And if the allegations are true, society experiences the cost as well, since wireless technology is then partially responsible for jam-packed hospitals and a marginally yet tangibly shorter life expectancy. 

Aside from wireless communications systems, many other common items and appliances create similar concerns for health, though probably to lesser extents.  The popular restaurant seasoning mono sodium glutamate (MSG) and the shampoo ingredient sodium laureth sulfate precede the long list of suspected cancer-causing chemicals, not to mention other supposedly harmful electronic appliances operating at similar or greater frequency bands than wireless devices.  It would be difficult to avoid all of these items for the sheer sake of health, so people implicitly place values of importance on the items, considering the costs and benefits.  People tend to avoid the items with lesser importance, even if the detrimental health risks are only risks.  Physical safety, though, is not the only ethical dilemma the wireless market is facing today.